2025-12-30 12:28:35

In 2025, the real-world asset (RWA) market enters a critical differentiation phase.

Remember the questions from the past two years? "Is asset onboarding feasible?" "Is tokenization realistic?" These once-core debates now have clear answers. The true test for various projects has shifted to a completely different dimension—

Can they ensure genuine delivery? Can they maintain long-term transparent operations? Can they gain recognition from institutional investors and the traditional financial system?

Gold tokenization projects are flooding in, but the gap between them is rapidly widening. The market has fully transitioned from the "conceptual stage" to the "practical validation stage." This is not just a technical issue but a comprehensive assessment of project operators' capabilities, risk control systems, and credibility.

Who can truly implement a reliable delivery mechanism will have the opportunity to seize the future of the financial system. Simply following the trend is no longer enough—being able to genuinely achieve delivery, transparency, and institutional recognition is the key to survival.

This round of reshuffling will leave no one with a second chance.

RWA9,17%

View Original

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DefiVeteran

· 9h ago

Haha, it's the same old rhetoric again—delivery transparency recognized by institutions... I've heard it so many times I'm getting calluses on my ears. --- Basically, it's about who can survive until next year, right? The tactics are all the same. --- The real differentiation started a long time ago; most of the recent calls are just late to the game. --- Is the delivery mechanism reliable? Honestly, no one can say for sure unless they verify it themselves. --- It's hard to say how many of the gold tokenization projects will survive this wave. --- Institutional recognition is the real ceiling; without it, everything else is pointless. --- It's the shuffle theory again—every round they say the same... but it's true that many projects have died. --- A well-designed risk control system looks good on paper, but can you trust it in practice? That's the real issue. --- I'm not criticizing for the sake of it; tokenization is still far from actual implementation.

View OriginalReply0

GhostInTheChain

· 10h ago

Basically, it's about who can survive until the end. Those following the trend should wake up. --- Regarding the settlement mechanism, it's truly a mirror that reveals all. Anyone can boast. --- This round of RWA (Real-World Assets) will probably see many projects fail again. Institutional recognition is the real hard currency. --- There are many gold tokenizations, but in the end, only a few can really stand out. --- Transparency sounds easy, but very few can actually do it well. --- It feels like another wave of淘沙, and the retail investors will be cut again. --- Institutional investors are the real picky ones; not just any project can get in. --- This round of reshuffling definitely has no Plan B. It's either die or survive. --- Most projects' risk control systems are just paper tigers; they'll be exposed at critical moments. --- Can technology go on-chain? That's basic operation. Now it's about management and reputation.

View OriginalReply0

WalletAnxietyPatient

· 10h ago

Gold tokenization is just a bunch, and in the end, it all depends on who can deliver and settle. It's another cycle of false prosperity being slapped in the face by reality. I bet five sats that they all die at the transparency hurdle. The big waves will sift out the sand; it's just the right time to weed out those armchair projects.

View OriginalReply0

FUD_Whisperer

· 10h ago

The delivery mechanism is really a mirror that exposes everything. Many projects hype it up loudly, but once you check the ledger, they fall apart. As for gold tokenization, it feels like old wine in a new bottle. Let's see who can survive until next year. Not many projects claiming transparency are truly transparent. The era of relying on relationships is over; now it's about whether you can actually deliver. Projects that can't even reconcile their accounts should really be taken off the list. From concept to practical application, a quick pass through the sieve leaves only the dregs. Institutional recognition is really about trust; whoever can inspire confidence wins. This round, I guess another batch of retail investors will get wiped out.

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 10h ago

Delivery is truly a mirror that reveals who is bluffing --- Being both gold and RWA, in the end, it all comes down to whose wallet and creditworthiness --- Honestly, eight out of ten projects entering now won't pass this round of scrutiny --- Transparency is easy to talk about but hard to implement; let's see who will crash and burn --- Institutional recognition is the real hard currency; having technology alone is useless --- So many projects rushing in, probably only a few will survive --- Shuffle the deck if you must; it's obvious who has real strength and who is just acting --- Projects without delivery guarantees are just illusions—wake up --- This round will likely see a batch of projects fail; they deserve it --- Basically, it's a test of who has reliable operations; technology is a minor issue

View OriginalReply0

RektButSmiling

· 10h ago

Delivery mechanism is the real skill; anyone can boast. --- Gold tokenization is abundant, but only a few can truly deliver; that's the reality. --- Transparency and institutional recognition are easy to talk about but deadly to implement. --- It seems many projects haven't thought through how to deliver at all, and are rushing to launch. --- The reshuffle has begun; the damn projects are finally getting their exit. --- The problem is most people can't tell who is reliable and who is just a scammer. --- Are there any projects with reliable delivery willing to step forward? I really want to see. --- There really are no second chances; be cautious when entering. --- In the RWA track, probably only two or three projects will remain in the end. --- Institutional investors are the real judges; they won't buy fake ones.

View OriginalReply0

airdrop_huntress

· 10h ago

Alright, it's that time again to see who actually does work and who just blows smoke. Projects with weak settlement mechanisms still dare to boast? Laughing to death. This round, we really need to squeeze out all the water; only those with real substance can survive. Basically, it's about who won't rug and whether the settlement can arrive on time. There are a bunch of gold RWA, but few can be presented to the public. Institutional recognition is the most competitive aspect; old traditional finance is still on the sidelines. Shuffle the cards if you must, but I only care about who does transparency and risk control most solidly. Projects that follow the trend should have died long ago; the fake can't last.

View OriginalReply0