The Rise of RWA: Reconstructing Opportunities for P2P

Main Thought: As products of consumer finance, can RWA, driven by blockchain financial innovation, reconstruct the P2P model and promote the development of inclusive finance?

In the current first phase of RWA, we can see that large institutions are involved, using financial market products such as funds, bonds, and stocks, primarily targeting the institutional market. Is this feast unrelated to retail investors? I don't think so! Combining the spirit of blockchain and the core considerations driven by global productivity, if RWA merely puts some financial products on-chain for trading among institutions, it is of no value regarding the two points I mentioned above. It will hardly promote the optimization of financial structure, social structure, and social economy. Therefore, my view is that the second phase of RWA is entirely necessary to absorb the experience of P2P thinking, achieve inclusive finance, and target the retail market, small and medium-sized enterprises, and ordinary individual investors, as this will contribute to the essence of social economy and productivity.

Here is a simple analysis I made:

The Rationality and Limitations of P2P: P2P, as an innovative model of internet finance, reduces costs and improves efficiency through disintermediation, meeting the needs of groups (such as small and micro enterprises and unbanked users) that traditional finance cannot cover. However, its development is limited by issues such as information asymmetry, risk of fund pools, high default rates, insufficient compliance, and poor liquidity, leading to frequent industry explosions and a serious trust crisis.

Traditional Financial Pain Points: High costs, low efficiency, and unequal financial services, especially in developing countries and low-interest-rate environments, where P2P fills the demand gap for flexibility and high returns.

Part Two: Comparative Analysis of P2P and RWA
Similarities: Both aim for inclusive finance, lowering barriers to participation and disintermediation.

Innovative Differences:
P2P relies on the internet and platform algorithms, has low transparency, poor liquidity, and centralized risk control.

RWA is based on blockchain, providing transparent on-chain records, tokenization enhances liquidity, and smart contracts automate risk control.

Detailed Comparison:
Target Customers: P2P targets small and medium investors and underserved financial groups; RWA initially targets institutions, with potential future expansion to retail investors.

Product Forms: P2P primarily focuses on loans; RWA focuses on tokenized assets (bonds, stocks, real estate, etc.) and financial derivatives.

Return Rates: P2P offers high risk and high returns (8%-15%); RWA is more stable (6%-8%), but overall returns can reach 10%-20%.

Trading Market: P2P is closed and regionally restricted; RWA is globalized, supporting cross-chain trading.

Liquidity: P2P has low liquidity; RWA significantly enhances liquidity through tokenization.

Part Three: RWA's Solutions to Reconstruct P2P
Core Innovation: RWA addresses P2P pain points through blockchain, tokenization, smart contracts, and decentralized governance (DAO), promoting inclusive finance.

Specific Pathways:
Asset Tokenization: Splitting traditional assets (such as bonds, stocks, commodities) into low-granularity tokens to lower investment thresholds.

DeFi Platforms: Enhancing transparency and liquidity through decentralized exchanges (DEX) and liquidity pools, supporting lending functions.

Distributed Scenario Investment: Fragmenting large assets (such as real estate) and combining them with consumer finance scenarios (such as mobile phones, auto consumer loans) to achieve small investments.

AI Agents: Automatically issuing distributed assets, intelligently matching trades, dynamic pricing, and optimizing asset management.

Community Governance: Achieving decentralized decision-making through DAO, enhancing user participation and trust.

Risk Control and Compliance: Automating risk control through smart contracts, tiered risk products, and adhering to global regulations.

Payments and Settlements: Supporting the circulation of fiat and digital currencies, enhancing the convenience of cross-border investments.

Part Four: Challenges and Feasibility of RWA
Challenges:
Regulatory Barriers: Complex multinational compliance.

Technical Implementation: High costs and complexity of blockchain technology.

User Education: Ordinary users have insufficient understanding of RWA and blockchain.

Market Acceptance: Requires time for validation.

Feasibility: RWA outperforms P2P in terms of transparency, risk control, liquidity, and cross-border trading, with high economic benefits and great compliance potential.

Conclusion: RWA has the potential to become the 'new P2P', promoting inclusive finance, but must overcome technological, regulatory, and user education barriers.

The above only represents personal views and analysis and does not constitute any investment advice!