Recently, Lily Liu, the chairman of the Solana Foundation, rarely talked about RWA seriously on her Twitter account.

She said in Twitter:

Most RWAs are valuable but have no price because they are not traded.

Encrypted native assets (memecoin in extreme cases) have prices but no value.

As a global financial infrastructure, cryptocurrencies need to have a full range of assets and risks.

The best point is assets with value and price, and on-chain stocks may be the best example.

RWA is an asset that has historically been subject to regulatory blockades and licensing restrictions and is therefore untradable. Therefore, it is of low value for both the issuer and the blockchain that issues them.

Given the nature of the assets (such as housing mortgages), most RWAs do not actually trade on their own. Instead, their main role in the on-chain economy is to act as collateral so that users can borrow stablecoins.

Own stablecoins, you have the economy.

In addition to posting this comment, Lily Liu also discussed a lot of issues with users.

A friend asked how feasible RWA is as collateral. Given that the transaction frequency of houses or office buildings is not high, but its basic value will still change. How high is the mortgage rate that the loan must reach to attract lenders?

Lily Liu does not believe that on-chain loans will take the route of over-collateralization. Medium- and short-term loans with low mortgage rates may be more suitable for on-chain.

Also think that not all RWAs are the same if yields can cover risks, such as holding stablecoins backed by Brazilian restaurant debt. But let's not pretend it's as safe as Treasury backed.

Lily Liu believes that RWA is hugely different, and this term is the abbreviation of $100 trillion in assets in traditional finance.

The scope of asset quality, risk, liquidity, and turnover is very wide.

Most of them do not trade, not because of on-chain liquidity, but because of the basic nature of the assets.