HTX Research Latest Report | From Asset Tokenization to Cash-Flow Tokenization: RWA and DeFi Enter the Second Half of Programmable Finance

56 min ago • 26 min read

1. Executive Summary

Over the past two years, RWA tokenization completed its initial phase of proof of concept. The market size of tokenized assets excluding stablecoins grew from less than $3 billion in mid-2024 to surpass $30 billion in April 2026, later remaining around $34 billion. This expansion demonstrates that traditional financial assets can be effectively mapped onchain and that institutions are increasingly viewing blockchain as a vital infrastructure layer for issuance, settlement, and asset management.

However, growth in scale does not imply that financialization is complete. The core question within the RWA market has shifted from “Can assets be brought onchain?” to “Are assets useful once they are onchain?” A token can represent ownership or yield rights to bonds, gold, fund shares, or credit assets, but this does not mean it has already become a financial building block that can be freely composed, collateralized, repriced, and embedded into DeFi protocols.

The core thesis of this report is that RWA and DeFi are entering the same second half. The first half of RWA was about proving that assets can be tokenized, recorded onchain, and held in wallets; the second half is about proving whether these assets can truly participate in onchain financial activities — whether they can be used as collateral, generate secondary liquidity, enter lending markets, become stablecoin reserves, and be used for repo, hedging, structured products, and risk transfer. The first half of DeFi was about proving that permissionless finance can function; the second half is about proving that protocol revenue can be sustained, risks can be managed, governance can be effective, and tokens can capture value. The intersection of RWA and DeFi represents a key transition in crypto markets from “narrative assets” to “cash-flow assets.”

Building on this, the next stage of RWA is no longer merely “asset tokenization,” but rather “cash-flow tokenization, credit tokenization, and risk tokenization.” Stablecoins provide the onchain cash leg. RWAs provide low-volatility yield-bearing assets and traditional collateral sources. DeFi protocols provide trading, lending, leverage, liquidation, and capital allocation. Only when these three layers form a closed loop can RWA evolve from static certificates into dynamic financial infrastructure.

As the dedicated research arm of HTX, HTX Research has long tracked the evolution of RWA, stablecoins, and onchain financial infrastructure. Alongside its trend analysis, this report examines what this transition demands of exchange product systems, and draws on HTX’s product practices across yield management, structured products, onchain earn, and collateralized financing to discuss how institutional narratives translate into financial products that ordinary users can actually use.

2. RWA Market: From Proof of Concept to Financialization

2.1 The Real Meaning Behind the Market Size Leap

The tokenized asset market excluding stablecoins has grown from under $3 billion in mid-2024 to approximately $34 billion in Q2 2026. This leap is more than a sign that the “RWA narrative” has gained popularity. More importantly, it proves that three foundational conditions are maturing at the same time: a compliant cash leg, institutional-grade infrastructure, and sustainable product demand.

First, stablecoins are becoming increasingly institutionalized, providing a more predictable regulatory environment for onchain payments, settlements, subscriptions, and redemptions. For instance, U.S. OCC documents show that the GENIUS Act came into effect on July 18, 2025, establishing a regulatory framework for payment stablecoin activities. (HTX) Stablecoins are the most important cash leg between RWA and DeFi. Only when this cash leg has regulatory certainty can institutions more easily incorporate onchain fund flows into their audit, risk management, and operational systems.

Second, infrastructure is advancing from “pilot-ready” to “production-ready.” Custody, KYC/AML, onchain identity, oracles, compliant transfer modules, institutional-grade wallets, and onchain audit solutions are gradually maturing. This lowers the technical threshold for traditional financial institutions to issue and manage onchain assets.

Third, institutions are moving from proof of concept to productization. Early RWA projects were more like blockchain experiments by financial institutions. Now, tokenized Treasuries, money market funds, gold, and credit assets are gradually becoming sustainable product lines. Behind the growth in market size is the fact that traditional asset management systems are beginning to accept onchain issuance and onchain settlement as new infrastructure options.

2.2 Proof of Concept Is Complete, But Financialization Is Still Early

Although RWA has grown rapidly, $34 billion is still only a very small slice of the global financial system. Global bond, equity, gold, credit, and fund markets are measured in tens of trillions or even hundreds of trillions of dollars, while current tokenized assets account for only a tiny share. Compared with their underlying markets, tokenized bonds, gold, and equities still have extremely low penetration rates.

This means that the most accurate positioning for RWA today is not “already mainstream,” but rather “proven feasible.” It has validated the feasibility of onchain issuance, onchain holding, and onchain settlement, but has not yet validated the sustainability of large-scale asset composability, large-scale credit creation, and large-scale secondary liquidity.

The first stage of RWA answered the question: “Can assets be brought onchain?” The second stage of RWA must answer a harder question: “After assets are brought onchain, do they create new financial efficiency?” This distinction marks the boundary between proof of concept and full financialization.

2.3 From Scale Growth to Financial Usage

Historically, the market tended to measure RWA development by the size of tokenized assets, the number of issued assets, and the number of onchain holders. But in the next stage, more important metrics will include utilization rate, turnover, collateralization rate, lending demand, real yield, default handling, secondary market depth, and protocol revenue.

If a tokenized Treasury product is merely held long term in whitelisted wallets, it is closer to an onchain yield certificate. If it can be used for collateralized lending, repo transactions, stablecoin reserves, DAO treasury management, or derivatives margin, then it has truly entered the onchain financial system.

Therefore, the next competitive dimension of the RWA market is no longer “who can issue more assets,” but “who can make assets truly flow, compose, and be priced onchain.”

3. Asset Categories, Onchain Utilization, and Multichain Structure

3.1 The Easiest Assets to Bring Onchain Are Not Necessarily the Most Valuable Onchain

The RWA market has already shown clear internal segmentation.

The first layer consists of Treasuries and gold. These are currently the largest asset categories and the easiest to bring onchain. U.S. Treasuries are highly standardized, yield-bearing, transparent in pricing, and supported by clear investor demand. For crypto investors, tokenized Treasuries provide a way to earn money-market-like returns on idle stablecoins. For institutions, they enable faster settlement, more flexible collateral movement, and a more direct connection to digital asset markets. Tokenized U.S. Treasuries have been one of the main drivers of recent RWA growth. (a16z crypto)

Gold is also naturally suited to tokenization. It is globally standardized, easy to custody, and transparent in pricing. Traditional finance has long had paper gold, gold ETFs, and gold certificates as non-physical forms of ownership. Public data also shows that the tokenized commodities market is almost entirely dominated by gold, which accounts for the vast majority of the category.

The second layer consists of private credit, reinsurance, Bitcoin mining notes, lending vault tokens, and other financial products that are closer to onchain-native demand. These products may not be the largest in scale, but from the beginning they are more focused on onchain use cases, such as collateralization, tranching, yield distribution, protocol integration, and risk transfer. The rapid growth of asset-backed credit and specialty finance products to the $1 billion scale reflects the pull of onchain-native demand on specific asset structures.

The third layer consists of VC funds, active strategies, private fund shares, and certain equity-like assets. These assets are attractive from a narrative perspective, but are much harder to implement. The difficulty is not only technical; legal relationships, valuation mechanisms, investor suitability, lock-up periods, disclosure, redemption arrangements, tax treatment, and cross-border compliance all create high barriers.

This shows that RWA is not a single vertical, but a collection of asset structures, legal structures, and financial use cases. The tokenization of Treasuries and gold is closer to “digitization,” meaning that existing asset records are moved onchain. Private credit, reinsurance, and onchain lending shares are closer to “onchain financialization,” meaning that onchain composition and usage are considered from the product design stage.

Therefore, RWA projects should not be evaluated only by asset size. A large tokenized Treasury product that is mostly held in whitelisted wallets may contribute less marginal value to DeFi than a smaller asset pool that can be widely used as collateral, liquidity certificates, or risk-transfer instruments. The core evaluation framework for RWA must shift from “asset issuance volume” to “financial usage volume.”

3.2 The Onchain Utilization Paradox: The Largest Asset Categories Have the Lowest DeFi Activity

The current RWA market shows an obvious “scale–activity inversion.” The largest asset categories often have the lowest onchain utilization rates, while smaller assets designed for onchain usage are more likely to enter DeFi protocols. Public data shows that tokenized bonds are among the largest asset categories, yet only around 5% of their supply is deployed in DeFi. Reinsurance tokens are smaller in scale, but a much higher proportion of their supply is deployed in DeFi protocols.

This phenomenon reveals a key issue: “being tokenized” and “being used in onchain finance” are two completely different concepts. The former emphasizes representation of asset rights, while the latter emphasizes composability, collateral usability, and transferability.

Many tokenized Treasury and gold products are still essentially onchain receipts. The underlying assets are managed by traditional custodians, fund managers, transfer agents, compliance service providers, and banking systems. The token is only a more efficient interface for registration and transfer. It can improve the holding and settlement experience, but it does not necessarily provide open transferability, permissionless collateralization, cross-protocol composability, or automated liquidation.

There are four main reasons for low utilization.

First, compliant transfer restrictions. Many RWA tokens can only be transferred between wallets that have completed KYC, met investor suitability requirements, and entered whitelists. This naturally limits open DeFi composability.

Second, discontinuous redemption and NAV cycles. Treasury funds, private credit, and fund shares are often redeemed on business days or in batches, while DeFi protocols operate 24/7. There is a natural mismatch in time structure.

Third, immature pricing and risk models. DeFi protocols require real-time prices, haircut parameters, liquidation thresholds, and liquidity depth. But many RWAs lack continuous secondary markets and can only rely on NAVs, broker quotes, or model-based valuations.

Fourth, legal recourse and default handling remain offchain. Smart contracts can automatically distribute yield, but they cannot automatically complete property foreclosure, corporate loan collection, or bankruptcy liquidation.

Therefore, the core challenge in the next stage of RWA is not to make more assets “appear onchain,” but to make more assets “safely usable in onchain finance.” This requires compliant asset standards, permissioned DeFi pools, onchain identity, verifiable reserves, oracles, offchain legal enforcement, and onchain liquidation mechanisms to mature together.

3.3 Multichain Structure: RWA Will Not Be Monopolized by a Single Blockchain

The network distribution of the RWA market shows a “one superpower, multiple strong players” pattern. Ethereum remains an important infrastructure layer due to its first-mover advantages in DeFi, security, institutional recognition, and smart contract ecosystems. However, BNB Chain, Solana, Stellar, Liquid Network, XRP Ledger, ZKsync Era, Arbitrum, and other networks have also formed their own RWA ecosystems. Public data shows that Ethereum accounts for roughly half of the tokenized asset market, while other chains are also growing in areas such as Treasuries, payments, gold, cross-border settlement, and low-cost trading.

This shows that RWA will not simply converge onto a single chain. Different assets will choose different infrastructures based on cost, compliance, liquidity, ecosystem relationships, and issuer distribution channels.

Ethereum is suitable for high-security, high-value assets that require DeFi composability. Stellar and XRP Ledger are more focused on payments, cross-border settlement, and institutional networks. Solana is suitable for high-throughput, low-cost, trading-oriented assets. L2s such as ZKsync and Arbitrum have differentiated potential in privacy, scalability, compliance proofs, and EVM ecosystem connectivity.

But a multichain structure also brings new problems. Cross-chain transfer of compliant assets is much harder than bridging ordinary crypto assets, because it involves not only token bridges, but also investor identity, jurisdictional restrictions, transfer eligibility, sanctions screening, reserve status, and synchronization of legal rights.

The future competition in RWA infrastructure will shift from “who can issue assets” to “who can enable compliant assets to move across chains, protocols, and use cases.” Whoever can solve compliant asset cross-chain transfer and cross-protocol composability may become core infrastructure in the second half of RWA.

4. DeFi Cash-Flow Valuation: From TVL Logic to Profit Logic

4.1 DeFi Is Entering the Era of Cash-Flow Valuation

As DeFi protocols gradually accumulate real users, real transactions, and real fees, the valuation framework for crypto assets also needs to evolve. In the past, the market commonly used metrics such as TVL, trading volume, FDV/TVL, and FDV/Revenue to evaluate DeFi projects. But these metrics mainly reflect scale, and do not necessarily reflect profitability or value-capture ability.

A more mature analytical framework should place crypto assets on a spectrum between “commodities” and “financial claims.”

Commodity-like assets, such as Bitcoin, are mainly driven by scarcity, liquidity, security, monetary premium, and adoption. They do not promise future cash flows, so they are more suitable for frameworks based on network value, monetary premium, and macro asset comparisons.

Cash-flow assets, such as certain DeFi protocol tokens, can be analyzed through revenue, profit, fee distribution, treasury assets, governance mechanisms, and token value-capture pathways. These assets are no longer merely narrative vehicles; they are increasingly becoming expressions of ownership or participation in onchain financial networks.

Lending protocols represented by Aave are typical examples of this shift. Aave has real borrowing demand, real interest income, observable fee structures, and continuously evolving capital allocation mechanisms. DeFiLlama breaks down Aave’s fee and revenue items. Aave V3’s fee sources include borrow interest, flash loan fees, liquidation fees, Paraswap swap fees, and Chainlink SVR.

This does not mean that traditional financial valuation models can be mechanically applied to DeFi tokens. Governance tokens are not stocks, and protocol revenue does not necessarily belong to token holders. But when a protocol’s business model, revenue structure, and value-capture mechanism become sufficiently clear, cash-flow frameworks become increasingly important.

4.2 One Layer Deeper: Cash-Flow Valuation Really Tests the “Transmission Chain”

The most common misunderstanding around DeFi cash-flow valuation is that as long as a protocol has revenue, its token should be valued using traditional P/E or DCF models. In reality, this is only the first layer. What matters more is whether the transmission chain from protocol activity to token value is complete.

This transmission chain includes at least six links.

First, does the protocol have real demand? Does revenue come from real user payment, or from short-term incentives, subsidies, speculative cycles, or a single market sentiment? If revenue is highly dependent on short-term trading enthusiasm, it is closer to cyclical revenue than capitalizable cash flow.

Second, can the protocol retain revenue? Many DeFi protocols generate high gross fees, but a large portion must be paid to LPs, validators, market makers, liquidity providers, or external service providers. What matters for valuation is not gross fee, but the net revenue that the protocol can retain and control.

Third, can revenue cover risk costs? Lending protocols face bad debt, liquidation failures, oracle risk, and safety module expenses. DEXs face liquidity subsidies and market-making costs. Derivatives protocols face insurance fund pressure during extreme market conditions. A revenue model that does not account for risk costs can easily overestimate protocol profitability.

Fourth, does the DAO have capital allocation capability? After protocol revenue enters the treasury, is it used for buybacks, burns, incentives, safety reserves, developer expenses, or ecosystem subsidies? Different allocation methods lead to completely different token value paths.

Fifth, does the token have a clear value-capture mechanism? Governance rights are not equivalent to cash-flow rights. Only when mechanisms such as buybacks, burns, staking rewards, fee rebates, or other distribution methods are sufficiently clear can protocol revenue be more easily priced into the token.

Sixth, does regulation recognize this value transmission? Governance tokens differ from traditional equity, and token holders usually do not necessarily have legal claims on protocol assets or future cash flows. Therefore, legal structure and regulatory classification directly affect whether institutional capital can price these assets with a lower discount rate.

Therefore, the key to DeFi cash-flow valuation is not mechanically applying traditional financial models to tokens, but determining whether the protocol already has a complete chain of “real demand — revenue retention — risk deduction — governance allocation — token capture — legal interpretability.”

4.2.1 Why Aave Has Become a Representative “Onchain Bank” Case

Aave’s business structure is relatively clear: depositors provide liquidity, borrowers borrow assets against collateral, and the protocol earns cash flow through spreads, liquidation fees, flash loan fees, partnership revenue, treasury income, and GHO stablecoin revenue.

It is not a bank in the traditional sense, because it does not have a centralized balance sheet and does not engage in maturity transformation as traditional banks do. But from an economic function perspective, it does play the role of an onchain money market and collateralized lending infrastructure.

Aave is different from purely narrative-driven tokens. It has real use cases and observable revenue sources. Borrow interest, flash loan fees, liquidation fees, partnership revenue, and stablecoin-related income together form the foundation of the protocol’s cash flows.

Aave’s uniqueness also lies in its position at the intersection of RWA and DeFi.

First, stablecoins are an important foundation for Aave’s lending activity. USDC, USDT, GHO, and other stablecoins form the cash leg of the onchain credit market.

Second, the development of institutional markets and permissioned pools creates opportunities for protocols like Aave to accommodate compliant asset collateral financing demand. If tokenized Treasuries, fund shares, private credit, and other compliant assets can be safely integrated into permissioned markets, they will no longer be merely certificates in wallets, but can become foundational assets for onchain credit expansion.

Third, Aave’s product architecture is evolving from a single lending market into a more complete onchain financial platform. Unified liquidity architecture, stablecoin business, safety modules, and user-facing applications are all designed to help the protocol handle more complex assets, more granular risks, and a broader range of user needs.

This also explains why Aave is viewed as an important case study for DeFi cash-flow valuation. RWA needs a protocol layer that can provide liquidity, collateralized financing, and risk parameter management; lending protocols like Aave are potential settlement layers for that demand.

4.2.2 Protocol Revenue Does Not Equal Token Value

Aave’s case also reminds the market that protocol revenue and token value are not automatically equivalent. A protocol making money does not mean its governance token will appreciate proportionally. Between the two, one must consider how fees enter the DAO treasury, how the DAO decides between buybacks, incentives, insurance, security spending, and product investment, whether token holders can consistently capture protocol value through governance, and whether regulators recognize this value transmission mechanism.

Therefore, the key to DeFi valuation is not revenue, but the conversion rate: the rate at which protocol economic activity is converted into token holder value.

Common pathways include burns, buybacks, rebates, and staking rewards. Burns reduce supply and affect long-term scarcity. Buybacks create market demand through protocol revenue. Rebates return part of the fees directly to users or holders. Staking strengthens token utility through lock-up and yield distribution. Different mechanisms have very different levels of directness, sustainability, regulatory risk, and market impact. The value transmission efficiency of buybacks, burns, rebates, and staking rewards varies significantly, while DAO spending, token emissions, and legal structure all affect the final valuation outcome.

In the future, evaluating DeFi protocols should not focus only on TVL and revenue scale. Instead, it should build a framework similar to an “onchain income statement + capital allocation statement.”

First, total fees represent how much users are willing to pay the protocol.

Second, protocol revenue represents how much the protocol actually retains.

Third, net income represents what remains after incentives, security, development, and operating expenses.

Fourth, treasury assets and liabilities represent how much capital buffer the protocol has.

Fifth, the value-capture mechanism represents how profits affect the token.

Sixth, reinvestment efficiency represents whether retained earnings can improve future revenue capacity.

This framework also applies to product analysis after RWA and DeFi converge. What will matter in the future is not whether a protocol has scale, but whether scale can be converted into sustainable yield, manageable risk, and value that can be captured by users or token holders.

5. Stablecoins, Regulation, and Risk Framework

5.1 Stablecoins Are the Common Base Asset of RWA and DeFi

The intersection of RWA and DeFi cannot exist without stablecoins. Stablecoins are not only quote currencies for trading, but also onchain cash, collateral, settlement layers, and yield distribution media.

Without stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries would struggle to obtain onchain funding access. Without stablecoins, DeFi lending would struggle to form stable borrowing demand. Without stablecoins, cross-border payments, institutional settlement, and RWA secondary markets would lack a unified cash leg.

Regulatory clarity around stablecoins is a structural variable for both RWA and DeFi. For RWA, stablecoins provide compliant cash entry points, subscription and redemption media, and onchain settlement units. For DeFi, stablecoins provide low-volatility liabilities and the foundation for lending demand. For institutions, clearer stablecoin regulation means they can more easily incorporate onchain fund flows into compliance, audit, and risk management systems.

Over the long term, stablecoins, RWA, and DeFi will form a three-layer structure.

The first layer is compliant stablecoins and onchain cash management, responsible for payment and settlement.

The second layer is tokenized Treasuries, money market funds, private credit, gold, and securitized assets, responsible for yield and collateral.

The third layer is protocols such as Aave, Maple, Sky, Pendle, Uniswap, and Hyperliquid, responsible for lending, trading, rates, risk, and leverage.

The more tightly connected these three layers become, the closer onchain finance moves toward a real capital market. Stablecoins solve the problem of “money,” RWA solves the problem of “assets,” and DeFi solves the problem of “financial functionality.” Only when all three are combined can a complete onchain financial system emerge.

5.2 Risks of RWA and DeFi: Greater Efficiency Also Amplifies Complexity

The integration of RWA and DeFi does not eliminate risk. On the contrary, it stacks offchain financial risk, onchain smart contract risk, market liquidity risk, and regulatory risk together.

In traditional finance, asset defaults, valuation markdowns, redemption runs, and regulatory reviews are already complex. If these risks enter a 24/7 DeFi environment that is leveraged, composable, and automatically liquidated, the system may react faster and transmit risk more intensely.

The first type of risk is asset authenticity and reserve risk. Do the corresponding underlying assets actually exist behind tokenized assets? Are reserves sufficient? Is custody independent? Are audits timely? Have assets been rehypothecated? Stablecoins have already shown that reserve transparency is critical to market confidence, and RWA will face the same issue.

The second type of risk is liquidity mismatch. Many underlying RWA assets trade only on business days or redeem periodically, while DeFi lending and derivatives markets operate 24/7. If RWAs are used as collateral for borrowing, market stress during weekends or holidays could create mismatches between oracle prices, redemption mechanisms, and liquidation processes.

The third type of risk is compliance composability risk. The advantage of open DeFi is permissionless composability, but RWA often requires whitelists, KYC, investor suitability, and jurisdictional restrictions. How to preserve composability without breaking compliance is a core challenge for RWAFi.

The fourth type of risk is DAO governance and value transmission risk. Whether protocol revenue should be used for token buybacks, safety modules, user incentives, risk reserves, or product development is essentially a capital allocation question. Low DAO voting participation, token concentration, stakeholder conflicts, and regulatory uncertainty can all affect valuation.

The fifth type of risk is oracle and pricing risk. RWA prices may come from NAVs, exchange quotes, broker quotes, model valuations, or manual disclosures. Different price sources have different delays, manipulation risks, and update frequencies, directly affecting liquidation safety in lending protocols.

Therefore, the integration of RWA and DeFi should not be understood simply as “traditional assets move onchain and liquidity is automatically unlocked.” Real implementation requires conservative risk parameters, layered market structures, permissioned pools, compliant secondary markets, transparent reserve proofs, stress testing, and clear default-handling rules. Only when the risk framework matures will capital move from pilots to scaled deployment.

6. Conclusion, Product Implications, and HTX’s Business Positioning

6.1 The First Half of RWA Was Issuance; the Second Half Is Usage

RWA tokenization and DeFi cash-flow valuation appear to be two different topics, but in fact they point to the same industry transition: the crypto market is moving from “asset existence” to “asset utility,” from “protocol usage” to “protocol profitability,” and from “narrative premium” to joint pricing based on cash flow, governance, and compliance.

The first stage of RWA proved that assets can be brought onchain. The second stage must prove that assets can create higher financial efficiency after being brought onchain. The first stage of DeFi proved that permissionless finance can function. The second stage must prove that protocol revenue can be sustained, risks can be managed, and value can be captured by tokens. Stablecoins are the base monetary layer connecting these two stages.

The most important directions to watch are not simply about “bringing more assets onchain,” but about five scenarios that can create real financial depth:

First, tokenized Treasuries entering onchain collateral and repo markets.

Second, private credit integrating with institutional lending protocols to form onchain fixed-income markets.

Third, tokenized gold and commodities becoming derivatives and margin assets.

Fourth, compliant equities and fund shares entering 24/7 global trading and financing systems.

Fifth, DeFi protocols entering the cash-flow valuation era through explicit value-capture mechanisms.

Together, these directions point to the same trend: the competitive focus of RWA will shift from “speed of tokenization” to “depth of onchain usage,” while the competitive focus of DeFi will shift from “TVL scale” to “cash-flow quality.”

6.2 HTX’s Existing Product and Wealth Management Matrix

From a business perspective, the development of RWA and DeFi does not only mean a new asset narrative. It also means that exchange product systems need to extend from a single trading entry point into gateways for asset allocation, yield management, onchain participation, and risk segmentation. At the product level, HTX has already formed a product matrix covering basic wealth management, structured yield, onchain yield, and collateralized financing. These modules are highly aligned with the core needs of the second half of RWA and DeFi.

First, HTX Earn already serves as a comprehensive yield entry point. In its Earn product upgrade announcement, HTX restructured Earn into five core sections: Overview, Simple Earn, New Listings, Structured Products, and On-chain Earn. This structure essentially divides user yield demand into five scenarios: account yield overview, basic wealth management, new asset participation, structured yield, and onchain yield.

Second, Simple Earn already covers the basic wealth management layer. According to HTX’s official explanation, Simple Earn includes flexible and fixed-term products, allowing users to choose different terms based on their liquidity needs. (HTX) In the context of continued RWA and stablecoin development, this type of product corresponds to onchain cash management and low-volatility yield demand. It does not directly issue RWA, but from a user experience perspective, it serves as an entry point for stablecoin and major asset yield.

Third, Structured Products already cover the structured yield layer. HTX’s Earn product upgrade announcement shows that Structured Products integrate Dual Investment, Shark Fin, and other structured Earn products, providing users with a richer set of risk-return combinations. The significance of these products is that they move users from simple holding-based yield toward a management framework based on target prices, maturities, volatility, and structured returns. As DeFi and RWA assets gradually mature, structured yield products will be an important product layer for users with different risk preferences.

Fourth, On-chain Earn already covers the onchain yield layer. HTX’s Earn product upgrade announcement shows that On-chain Earn integrates blockchain-native yield services such as ETH 2.0 node staking, providing users with channels for onchain asset growth. (HTX) This product category corresponds to a core trend in the second half of DeFi: users do not necessarily need to operate complex protocols directly, but they need a safer, clearer, and more standardized entry point to participate in onchain yield.

Fifth, Collateral Swap already covers collateralized financing and asset efficiency. HTX’s Collateral Swap page shows that verified users can swap digital assets by pledging specified assets in their accounts, with the acquired assets arriving in a short period of time. The product supports flexible, 7-day, 30-day, 45-day, and 90-day terms, and supports multiple assets as collateral. The essence of this product is to help users improve capital efficiency without directly selling core assets, corresponding to the direction of “collateral financialization” in DeFi and RWA.

Therefore, HTX’s business positioning in RWA and DeFi is not limited to asset observation or trade matching. Through Earn, Simple Earn, Structured Products, On-chain Earn, and Collateral Swap, HTX has already formed a relatively complete entry point for user asset efficiency.

From a product logic perspective, HTX already covers four key layers:

First, the cash management layer: through Simple Earn, flexible products, and fixed-term products, it addresses users’ demand for stablecoin and major asset yield.

Second, the yield structure layer: through Dual Investment, Shark Fin, and other products, it expands user yield management from a single interest-rate model to target price, maturity, and volatility structures.

Third, the onchain yield layer: through On-chain Earn, PoS staking, and ETH 2.0 node staking, it lowers the operational barrier for users to participate in onchain protocol yield.

Fourth, the collateral efficiency layer: through products such as Collateral Swap, it allows users to improve capital efficiency while maintaining exposure to core assets.

This means that HTX has already covered, in product form, several of the most important user needs in the second half of RWA and DeFi: low-volatility yield, structured yield, onchain yield, collateralized financing, and asset efficiency management. The second half of RWA is “usage,” and the second half of DeFi is “cash flow.” The productization capability of exchanges is the key connective layer that turns these trends from institutional narratives into financial products usable by ordinary users.

Key References

The post first appeared on HTX Square.