#RWA资产代币化 After watching CZ's year-end Q&A, I have to be honest: the narrative level of the RWA track has indeed changed.

Previously, when we discussed RWA, most conversations focused on technical issues like "whether it can be on-chain." Now CZ directly states that he is negotiating asset tokenization with over a dozen heads of state — this is not a fundraising concept; it’s a serious issue to activate national-level liquidity. Resource-rich countries like those with oil and rare earths have money but lack liquidity, and tokenization is a cryptographic means to leverage global capital.

But there is a point I must warn about: **A bigger narrative does not mean project risks are smaller.**

Historically, every upgrade of a big narrative has been accompanied by a wave of projects "riding the trend to raise funds." Now that RWA is so hot, some will use the story of "national cooperation" to raise funds, but in reality, they have nothing. I’ve seen too many projects sustain themselves on concepts until they reach peak valuation, then disappear.

If you want to survive longer, you need to see clearly:

1. **Tokenization does not equal liquidity.** Just because an asset is on-chain doesn’t mean someone will buy it. There must be a real revenue model or use case behind it.

2. **Compliance is the easiest part to be fooled by.** Saying "national regulation is friendly" and "truly landing compliance" are worlds apart. The former is a trend, the latter is a moat.

3. **Be wary of "national-level" propaganda.** In the past two years, the most heard phrases are "project X cooperates with the country" or "receives government support." Ninety percent of these are exaggerated interpretations, and ten percent may be false.

The RWA direction is fine; the problem is that you need to clearly distinguish whether you are investing in the digitalization of real assets or just another round of concept hype. These days, it’s easy to draw a big pie, but hard to build a moat.