Author: Go2Mars' Web3 Research
The real solution lies in structural shifts, not emotional venting; in acceptance, not fawning. The next stage for RWA is not a tipping point, but an entry point; not a traffic source, but an institutional one.
The hottest trends of 2025 are undoubtedly HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many explanations for their explosive popularity, and the angles offered are often quite unconventional. However, the fundamental reasons for their success might be easier to understand by examining them from a product perspective. Once we've analyzed these trends, can we extend this to RWA DEX? If so, how should we upgrade and develop them? This article will try to explain this clearly.
Deciphering the essence of HyperLiquid and Aster's explosive popularity
The fundamental reason for the explosive popularity of Aster and Hyperliquid can be summarized in one sentence: they are not "better DEXs," but rather "the first to put the **sovereignty** of exchanges on-chain." Simply put, from a product perspective, it's not about performance, transaction fees, or UI/UX. Rather, it's about a structural change in "who controls the transactions."
Why did HyperLiquid become so popular?
You've probably heard these things: self-developed L1 cache, high performance; CLOB is like a CEX, low latency, good depth, and excellent user experience; but these only explain "easy to use," not "explosive popularity." After in-depth research on HyperLiquid by Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute), a conclusion was reached: HyperLiquid's real breakthrough is that it changes "transaction sovereignty."
In traditional CEX/DEX, the actual control over the boundaries related to trading, such as listing, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and suspension of trading, is in the hands of the platform. In other words, "users who participate in trading are merely passive participants ."
What did Hyperliquid do? It broke down the "core power of exchanges" into modules that can be constrained by on-chain rules. The key is not "decentralization," but whether the rules can be unilaterally modified and whether they can be interfered with in extreme cases. Hyperliquid's core message is: "Even the system itself cannot arbitrarily change the rules."
In 2025 and earlier, a recurring pattern has emerged: excessive trading interventions ostensibly for "compliance/risk control/risk management." The result of these interventions is often the rollback of profits, forced liquidation of positions, market suspension, and retroactive rule changes. This forces high-frequency traders, institutional investors, and smart money to realize for the first time that they are bearing "institutional risk," not market risk .
Hyperliquid's core appeal lies in its principle of "I only bear market risk , not the platform's will." This represents a qualitative leap in the product itself. Therefore, Hyperliquid's explosive growth isn't driven by user numbers, but rather by: the migration of professional traders, large funds willing to operate without a physical presence, the ability to deploy strategies long-term, and extremely high system predictability— this is the on-chain realization of "exchange credibility."
Why did Aster become so popular?
We can be clear on one point: Aster's explosive popularity is different from Hyperliquid's. On the surface, Aster's product appears to be a next-generation derivatives DEX, modular, with a good UX and innovative mechanism design, but these aren't the core features. Aster's true strength lies in: "the abstract upgrade of trading behavior." In short, Aster doesn't sell trading itself, but rather "the encapsulation of trading capabilities."
Traditional exchanges give users the right to place orders, cancel orders, and leverage; while Aster gives users a strategy-level interface, conditional execution, risk structure templates, and behavioral combination permissions. Simply put, users are not "trading," but rather calling upon a set of "market behavior capabilities."
The reason Aster became so popular is essentially because the user base has changed. Most users are novices or gamblers, but rather "strategy users/agents/automated systems." Trading is no longer manual but systematic. Aster essentially provides a "legal, stable, and composable trading execution environment " for AI/ Bot /Agent/quantitative trading .
Product inspiration from Hyperliquid and Aster
Can these types of products continue to exist? The answer is yes, of course they can, but not by simply copying them. What can continue is not the form, but three underlying logics: transaction sovereignty must be verifiable, transactions are not "page behavior" but "system capabilities," and exchanges themselves are "institutional products." Hyperliquid actually solved the problem of "untrustworthy institutions," addressing the question: Will the platform change the rules ? Aster solved the problem of "insufficient abstraction of trading capabilities," addressing the question: Can transactions be invoked by the system ?
In a previous article published on Go2Mars PRI titled "Web 3 is Entering the Rule Generation Phase," we discussed how the next stage of Web 3 is not a breakthrough point, but an entry point ; not a traffic portal, but a regulatory portal .
From this, we basically understand the fundamental reasons for the explosive popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster. So, can we use this logic to return to the RWA sector, which has been hyped for more than two years, and discuss the direction of the RWA exchange?
Does RWA have an exchange?
Strictly speaking, a "real RWA exchange" almost does not exist at present.
Why do the so-called RWA DEX/CEXs we see now "not resemble exchanges"? Because they are mostly stuck on three things: unclear legal responsibilities, a lack of closed-loop clearing and execution, and unnatural liquidity.
Let us explain each of these three things:
Legal responsibility is unclear : Who is the issuer, who guarantees the authenticity, and who is responsible for breach of contract? These are all unclear.
The liquidation and execution process is not a closed loop : transactions are completed on-chain, but non-compliance occurs off-chain, and ultimately the law is relied upon. In the end, the on-chain rules become invalid, making it a complete joke.
The liquidity is unnatural : there is no market making, no continuous quotes, and it is more like a "private placement".
Based on Go2Mars PRI 's research and historical review, we believe that a "true RWA exchange" must possess the following characteristics: on-chain liquidation rights > off-chain ownership; defaults can be automated; and RWA itself is a "cash flow instrument," not "proof of assets." We will explain these three basic principles as follows:
On-chain liquidation rights > Off-chain ownership : It's not "I own this asset," but rather: "When a rule is triggered, I have the right to execute a certain outcome." For example: priority of returns, right to dispose of collateral, and right to distribute cash flow.
Defaults can be handled automatically : the enforcement of defaults here will definitely not rely on laws or courts, but will be carried out through: pledges, margin deposits, risk pools, and advance compensation, so that the cost of default is brought forward, rather than being pursued afterward.
RWA is a "cash flow instrument," not a "proof of assets ." RWA doesn't trade "houses/debts," but rather "the right to prioritize cash flows." This priority refers to agreements on who receives money first, how much, and how much risk they bear. The core lies in the recombination of risk and return; the priority of cash flows is arguably the most crucial aspect of RWA.
So, based on the current situation, are there any products that are "close to the correct form"? The answer is yes, but they are still in the semi-finished product stage . They are usually characterized by: not being called an exchange, not emphasizing RWA, but already doing: on-chain cash flow allocation, risk stratification, and automatic liquidation. Therefore , the real RWA exchange in the future may not be called an RWA exchange.
For RWA and the RWA exchange, the issue isn't simply "asset on-chaining," as that's a very straightforward process. The real challenge lies in " on-chaining the mechanisms for liability, liquidation, and default ." This involves ensuring that default, enforcement, and cash flow prioritization can be implemented and managed by a program.
In conclusion, the ultimate goal of RWA is not "asset on-chain," but "institutional on-chain."
When we look back at the explosive popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster, they are not essentially "making a better exchange", but rather doing something deeper - turning the exchange system into on-chain rules .
Hyperliquid addresses the question: Will the platform change its rules? Aster addresses the question: Can transactions be invoked by the system? But a true RWA exchange needs to solve a much more difficult problem: Can default, liability, and cash flow prioritization be taken over by the program? If this problem cannot be solved, RWA will forever remain just an "asset presentation layer"; only if this problem is solved will RWA become an "institutional financial layer."
Over the past two years, the market has focused on "how to put assets on the blockchain"—real estate, debt, bills, fund shares, income rights, mining farms, power plants… But these are merely superficial. What truly has value is not asset proof, but the execution structure of cash flow . Who distributes assets first? Who bears the initial loss? What are the default trigger conditions? Is execution automatic? Is liquidation irreversible? These questions are essentially "institutional issues," not "asset issues." If defaults still require court intervention, if performance still relies on human judgment, and if liquidation can still be negotiated and modified—then the so-called RWA DEX is merely a traditional financial product with a blockchain UI. That's not an upgrade, but a repackaging.
A true RWA exchange might not look like what we're familiar with. It might not emphasize "decentralization," might not focus on "a wide variety of assets," and might not even be called an "exchange." But it must possess three things: rules exist before assets, liquidation weight precedes ownership, and default costs are incurred upfront, rather than being pursued afterward. When these conditions are met, RWA will not be an "on-chain private placement," but a composable cash flow market. At that point, the object of trading will no longer be "a specific project," but "a certain risk structure." It won't be "buying assets," but "buying the right to prioritize a segment of cash flow."
If Web3 is entering a "rule-generating phase," then the mission of RWA is to transform the most core, hidden, and subjective aspects of traditional finance—default handling and profit prioritization—into verifiable, composable, and executable procedural structures. Only when the system itself becomes a product, when liquidation logic becomes the interface, and when risk structures can be assembled like Lego bricks, will RWA truly become a new financial paradigm, rather than just a shell of the old.
Perhaps the true RWA exchange won't explode in terms of "asset size," but rather in terms of "institutional credibility." Just as Hyperliquid attracted the migration of professional traders, the future RWA structured market will attract: capital unwilling to bear institutional risks, institutions that want transparent risk structures, and AI/Agent/quantitative systems that need programmable cash flow. When cash flow can be understood by algorithms, when defaults can be automatically executed, and when liquidation can be priced in advance, that will be the real breakthrough for RWA.
Therefore, the question isn't: Can RWA become an exchange? Rather: Who can be the first to thoroughly enshrine "responsibility, default, and liquidation" into on-chain rules? When that day comes, RWA will no longer be a narrative component, but a new institutional and financial foundation. And that will be the true upgrade and evolution.
