Recently, a phenomenon has been quite popular in the crypto market—various tokenized US Treasuries, tech stocks, and real estate assets competing to be on-chain. It sounds very appealing: holding traditional financial high-quality assets as digital assets. Isn't this the perfect combination of Web3 and the real world?
The problem is, very few people ask the most painful question: how exactly does that constantly fluctuating on-chain price come about?
**How bad is the current situation?**
Let's directly compare it to Wall Street quotes. What about delays, who sets the exchange rate? Should it be priced by the project team themselves? What's the difference from dark pool manipulation? When the underlying asset market is closed, whose data does the on-chain information listen to? When most people rush into the RWA ecosystem, they haven't even clarified the ownership of the pricing rights—that might be the easiest pitfall to fall into right now.
**The fatal flaw of traditional methods**
Many projects now are so crude: they find a centralized data provider to periodically "bring" traditional financial prices onto the chain. It sounds simple, but the problem is huge. If a single data source makes an error or is manipulated, the entire protocol's price benchmark is ruined. After stock markets close, on-chain prices become static, but risk events happening globally can't be reflected in real-time. Moreover, the entire "transportation" process is a black box—who knows if the data has been tampered with along the way?
**Where is the real solution?**
The solution is actually quite clear: establish a decentralized "price consensus network." This isn't just a simple data relay station but a mechanism to generate trustworthy, real-time prices for on-chain RWAs. The core logic is decentralized verification—multiple independent nodes participate in price confirmation, and through consensus mechanisms, ensure data authenticity and resistance to manipulation. Only then can we truly break the monopoly of centralized pricing.
In simple terms, the pricing rights should be held by network participants, not by some self-proclaimed "authority" intermediary. This is the key to the RWA ecosystem truly maturing.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
5 Likes
Reward
5
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RugResistant
· 9h ago
analyzed the oracle problem here deeply... single data source = single point of failure, and most RWA projects haven't even thought about it yet. red flags detected everywhere.
Reply0
AirdropAnxiety
· 9h ago
Another "perfect combination." First, ask who is doing secret pricing.
RWA is now just a shell game; who dares to touch black-box quotes?
Is the pricing power still in the hands of the project team? Then I might as well stick to spot trading.
Decentralized pricing sounds great, but when the chain is offline, it's still like blind men feeling an elephant.
Everyone is being exploited by intermediaries; what consensus mechanism are you talking about?
View OriginalReply0
FastLeaver
· 9h ago
It's the same RWA套路 again, how many times have they said that pricing power is in their hands? When it comes to actual implementation, centralized data sources still hold the say.
No matter how good it sounds, it's just left hand giving to the right hand. Decentralized price consensus sounds great, but who can guarantee that nodes won't cheat together?
This wave of bottom-fishing will ultimately be cut again. Trust me.
View OriginalReply0
FarmToRiches
· 9h ago
Another bunch of RWA projects talking to themselves, and the pricing power is still firmly controlled by a few big players.
---
Wait, can the decentralized verification system really get off the ground? I think most projects are just repackaging the same old tricks.
---
It sounds nice, but in the end, it's still the centralized exchanges that call the shots, and the on-chain price is just a decoration.
---
Black box price manipulation—I stopped believing in this long ago. Once you've been exploited once, you understand.
---
So, the essence of the RWA ecosystem is still about deceiving newcomers into entering the market. The game for pricing power is too deep.
---
If we really want decentralized pricing, how many nodes would be enough to resist manipulation? Is that realistic?
---
Every time they say they want to break the monopoly, but in the end, the monopoly just changes its disguise to continue exploiting.
View OriginalReply0
Blockwatcher9000
· 9h ago
It's another price manipulation game with RWA, really annoying.
---
Really thought on-chain data was transparent, lol, but it's just a different black box.
---
Decentralized pricing sounds good, but who guarantees that the validation nodes themselves won't be bought?
---
Basically, it's just an intermediary with a different guise; the pitfalls still need to be faced.
---
Oracles are indeed the Achilles' heel of RWA; I haven't seen any particularly reliable solutions so far.
---
Multi-chain node validation is just a delay issue; during a bear market, it still collapses.
---
That's why I've been cautious about RWA, waiting to see who can truly solve this problem.
Recently, a phenomenon has been quite popular in the crypto market—various tokenized US Treasuries, tech stocks, and real estate assets competing to be on-chain. It sounds very appealing: holding traditional financial high-quality assets as digital assets. Isn't this the perfect combination of Web3 and the real world?
The problem is, very few people ask the most painful question: how exactly does that constantly fluctuating on-chain price come about?
**How bad is the current situation?**
Let's directly compare it to Wall Street quotes. What about delays, who sets the exchange rate? Should it be priced by the project team themselves? What's the difference from dark pool manipulation? When the underlying asset market is closed, whose data does the on-chain information listen to? When most people rush into the RWA ecosystem, they haven't even clarified the ownership of the pricing rights—that might be the easiest pitfall to fall into right now.
**The fatal flaw of traditional methods**
Many projects now are so crude: they find a centralized data provider to periodically "bring" traditional financial prices onto the chain. It sounds simple, but the problem is huge. If a single data source makes an error or is manipulated, the entire protocol's price benchmark is ruined. After stock markets close, on-chain prices become static, but risk events happening globally can't be reflected in real-time. Moreover, the entire "transportation" process is a black box—who knows if the data has been tampered with along the way?
**Where is the real solution?**
The solution is actually quite clear: establish a decentralized "price consensus network." This isn't just a simple data relay station but a mechanism to generate trustworthy, real-time prices for on-chain RWAs. The core logic is decentralized verification—multiple independent nodes participate in price confirmation, and through consensus mechanisms, ensure data authenticity and resistance to manipulation. Only then can we truly break the monopoly of centralized pricing.
In simple terms, the pricing rights should be held by network participants, not by some self-proclaimed "authority" intermediary. This is the key to the RWA ecosystem truly maturing.