1. Abstract

Over the past two years, RWA tokenization has completed the first phase of proof of concept. The scale of tokenized assets, excluding stablecoins, rose from less than $3 billion in mid-2024 to surpassing $30 billion in April 2026, subsequently stabilizing around $34 billion. This indicates that traditional financial assets can be effectively mapped on-chain, and institutions are beginning to adopt blockchain as new infrastructure for issuance, settlement, and asset management.

However, scale growth does not equal the completion of financialization. The core issue of the current RWA market has shifted from "whether assets can be on-chained" to "whether assets are useful after being on-chained." Tokens can represent ownership and yield rights of bonds, gold, fund shares, or credit assets, but this does not mean they have become financial building blocks that are freely composable, collateralizable, re-pricable, and embeddable into DeFi protocols.

The core judgment of this report is: RWA and DeFi are entering the same second half. The first half of RWA was proving that assets can be tokenized, registered, and held on-chain; the second half must prove whether these assets can be collateralized, form secondary liquidity, enter lending markets, become stablecoin reserves, and be used for buybacks and structured products. The first half of DeFi was proving that permissionless finance can operate; the second half must prove that protocol revenue can be sustainable, risks can be managed, and tokens can capture value. The convergence of these two main lines is essentially the key turning point for the crypto market moving from "narrative assets" to "cash flow assets."

Expanding on this, the report believes that the next stage of RWA is no longer just "assets on-chain," but "cash flows on-chain, credit on-chain, risks on-chain": stablecoins solve the on-chain cash leg, RWA provides low-volatility yield assets and sources of traditional collateral, and DeFi protocols provide the layers for trading, lending, leverage, liquidation, and capital allocation. Only when these three form a closed loop can RWA evolve from static certificates to dynamic financial infrastructure.

As the research department under HTX, HTX Research has long tracked the evolution paths of RWA, stablecoins, and on-chain financial infrastructure. While completing trend judgments, this report also sorts out the new requirements this transition poses for trading platform product systems, and combines HTX's product practices in yield management, structured products, on-chain yield, and collateral financing to discuss how institutional narratives can be transformed into financial products that ordinary users can actually use.

2. RWA Market: From Proof of Concept to Financialization

2.1 The True Meaning Behind the Market Scale Leap

The tokenized asset market, excluding stablecoins, grew from less than $3 billion in mid-2024 to approximately $34 billion in Q2 2026. This leap is not just "RWA narrative heating up"; more importantly, it proves that three basic conditions are maturing simultaneously: compliant cash legs, institutional-grade infrastructure, and sustainable product demand.

First, stablecoins are gradually becoming institutionalized, providing a more predictable institutional environment for on-chain payments, settlements, and subscriptions/redemptions. U.S. OCC documents show that the GENIUS Act came into effect on July 18, 2025, and established a regulatory framework for payment stablecoin activities. (HTX) Stablecoins are the most important cash leg between RWA and DeFi; only when the cash leg has regulatory certainty can institutions more easily incorporate on-chain capital flows into audit, risk control, and operational systems.

Second, infrastructure is moving from "pilot-ready" to "production-ready." Custody, KYC/AML, on-chain identity, oracles, compliant transfer modules, institutional-grade wallets, and on-chain audit solutions are gradually maturing, lowering the technical threshold for traditional financial institutions to issue and manage on-chain assets.

Third, institutions are moving from POC to productization. Early RWA was more like a blockchain experiment for financial institutions, whereas now tokenized treasuries, money market funds, gold, and credit-like assets are gradually becoming sustainable product lines. Behind the market scale growth is the traditional asset management system beginning to accept on-chain issuance and on-chain settlement as a new infrastructure option.

2.2 Proof of Concept Completed, But Financialization Still in Early Stages

Although RWA growth is significant, $34 billion is still a tiny slice in the global financial system. The scale of global bond, stock, gold, credit, and fund markets is counted in tens of trillions or even hundreds of trillions of dollars, while current tokenized assets occupy only a very small proportion. Penetration rates for tokenized bonds, gold, and stocks remain extremely low compared to their corresponding underlying markets.

This means that the most accurate positioning of RWA currently is not "already mainstream," but "proven feasible." It verifies the operability of on-chain issuance, on-chain holding, and on-chain settlement, but has not yet verified the sustainability of large-scale asset composability, large-scale credit creation, and large-scale secondary liquidity.

Phase one RWA solves "whether it can be moved on-chain." Phase two RWA must answer "whether moving it on-chain creates new financial efficiency." This is also the key watershed for RWA moving from proof of concept to financialization.

2.3 From Scale Growth to Financial Usage

In the past, the market was accustomed to measuring RWA development using tokenized asset scale, the number of issued assets, and the number of on-chain holders. But entering the next stage, more important indicators will become utilization rate, turnover rate, collateralization rate, lending demand, real yield, default handling, secondary market depth, and protocol revenue.

If a tokenized treasury product is just held long-term in a whitelisted wallet, it is more like an on-chain yield certificate; if it can be used for collateralized borrowing, repo transactions, stablecoin reserves, DAO treasury management, or derivatives margin, it truly enters the on-chain 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, combine, and price on-chain."

3. Asset Classes, On-Chain Utilization, and Multi-Chain Landscape

3.1 Assets Easiest to On-Chain Are Not Necessarily Most Valuable On-Chain

Clear stratification has emerged within the RWA market.

The first layer is treasuries and gold. They are the largest asset categories currently and also the assets easiest to move on-chain. U.S. treasuries have high standardization, stable yields, transparent prices, and clear investor demand. For crypto investors, tokenized treasuries are tools for idle stablecoins to obtain money market-like yields; for institutions, it means faster settlement, more flexible collateral circulation, and access methods closer to digital asset markets. Tokenized U.S. treasuries are one of the main drivers of recent RWA growth.

Gold is also naturally suitable for tokenization. It is globally standardized, easy to custody, has transparent prices, and traditional finance already has non-physical holding forms such as paper gold, gold ETFs, and gold certificates. Public data also shows that the tokenized commodity market is almost dominated by gold, with gold accounting for the vast majority of this category's scale.

The second layer is private credit, reinsurance, Bitcoin mining notes, lending vault tokens, and other financial products closer to on-chain native demands. These products may not have the largest scale, but from the design stage, they emphasize on-chain usage scenarios more, such as collateral, tranching, yield distribution, protocol access, and risk transfer. Asset-backed credit and professional financial products reached the $1 billion scale quickly, reflecting the pull of on-chain native demand on specific asset structures.

The third layer is VC funds, active management strategies, private equity fund shares, and some stock-like assets. These assets are very attractive narratively, but have higher implementation difficulties. The difficulties are not just technical; legal relationships, valuation mechanisms, investor suitability, lock-up periods, information disclosure, redemption arrangements, tax handling, and cross-border compliance together constitute high barriers.

This shows that RWA is not a single track, but a collection of asset structures, legal structures, and financial usage scenarios. Tokenization of treasuries and gold is closer to "digitization," i.e., moving existing asset records on-chain; private credit, reinsurance, and on-chain loan shares are closer to "on-chain financialization," i.e., considering on-chain combination and on-chain usage from the product design stage.

Therefore, measuring RWA projects cannot rely solely on asset scale. A very large tokenized treasury product, if most of the time it is just held in a whitelisted wallet, may have lower marginal contribution to the DeFi ecosystem than a smaller asset pool that can be widely used as collateral, liquidity certificates, or risk transfer tools. The core evaluation system for future RWA needs to shift from "asset issuance volume" to "financial usage volume."

3.2 On-Chain Utilization Paradox: Largest Asset Classes, Lowest DeFi Activity

The current RWA market exhibits a clear "scale-activity inversion." The largest asset categories often have the lowest on-chain utilization; smaller categories designed for on-chain usage are反而 easier to enter DeFi protocols. In public data, tokenized bonds are one of the largest asset categories, but only about 5% of supply is deployed in DeFi; reinsurance tokens have smaller scale but a higher proportion deployed in DeFi protocols.

This phenomenon reveals a key issue: "being tokenized" and "being used for on-chain finance" are two completely different concepts. The former emphasizes the representation of asset rights, while the latter emphasizes asset composability, collateralizability, and circulability.

Many treasury and gold products are essentially still on-chain receipts. Underlying assets are managed jointly by traditional custodians, fund managers, transfer agents, compliance service providers, and the banking system; tokens are just more efficient registration and transfer interfaces. They can improve holding and settlement experiences but do not necessarily possess open transfer, permissionless collateralization, cross-protocol composition, and automatic liquidation capabilities.

There are mainly four categories of reasons causing low utilization.

First, compliant transfer restrictions. Many RWA tokens can only be transferred between wallets that have completed KYC, meet investor suitability, and are on whitelists, which naturally limits open DeFi composition.

Second, discontinuous redemption and NAV cycles. Treasury funds, private credit, and fund shares often redeem by business day or batch, while DeFi protocols operate in a 7x24 hour environment; there is a natural mismatch in time structure between the two.

Third, immature price and risk models. DeFi protocols need real-time prices, discount parameters, liquidation thresholds, and liquidity depth, but many RWA have no continuous secondary market and can only rely on NAV, broker quotes, or model valuations.

Fourth, legal recourse and default handling remain off-chain. Smart contracts can automatically distribute yields but cannot automatically handle real estate mortgage disposition, corporate loan collection, or bankruptcy liquidation.

Therefore, the core of the next phase of RWA is not to let more assets "appear on-chain," but to let more assets "be safely used for on-chain finance." This requires the joint maturation of compliant asset standards, permissioned DeFi pools, on-chain identity, verifiable reserves, oracles, off-chain legal enforcement, and on-chain liquidation mechanisms.

3.3 Multi-Chain Landscape: RWA Will Not Be Monopolized by a Single Public Chain

The network distribution of the RWA market presents a "one dominant leader and multiple strong players" pattern. Ethereum,凭借 its first-mover advantage in DeFi, security, institutional cognition, and smart contract ecosystem, remains important infrastructure. But BNB Chain, Solana, Stellar, Liquid Network, XRP Ledger, ZKsync Era, Arbitrum, and other networks have also formed their own RWA territories. In public data, Ethereum accounts for about half of the tokenized asset market share, but other chains are also forming distributed growth in scenarios such as treasuries, payments, gold, cross-border settlement, and low-cost transactions.

This shows that RWA will not simply converge to one chain. Different assets will choose different infrastructure based on cost, compliance, liquidity, ecosystem relationships, and issuer channels.

Ethereum is suitable for high security, high value, assets needing DeFi composition; Stellar and XRP Ledger are more biased towards payments, cross-border settlement, and institutional networks; Solana is suitable for high throughput, low cost, and assets oriented towards trading experience; ZKsync, Arbitrum, and other L2s have differentiated space in privacy, scalability, compliance proofs, and EVM ecosystem connection.

But multi-chain also brings new problems. Compliant asset cross-chain circulation is harder than ordinary crypto asset cross-chain circulation because it involves not only token bridges but also investor identity, jurisdiction restrictions, transfer qualifications, sanction screening, reserve status, and legal rights synchronization.

The future focus of competition for RWA infrastructure will shift from "whether assets can be issued" to "whether compliant assets can flow across chains, across protocols, and across scenarios." Whoever can solve the problem of compliant asset cross-chain circulation and cross-protocol composition may become the core infrastructure of the second half of RWA.

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

4.1 DeFi Begins to Enter 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 change. In the past, the market commonly used TVL, trading volume, FDV/TVL, FDV/Revenue, and other indicators to measure DeFi projects. But these indicators reflect scale more than profitability and value capture ability.

A more mature analytical framework should understand crypto assets on the spectrum of "commodity—financial claim."

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

Cash flow-type assets, such as some DeFi protocol tokens, can be analyzed through revenue, profit, fee distribution, treasury assets, governance mechanisms, and token value capture paths. Such assets are no longer just narrative carriers but gradually approach equity expression of on-chain financial networks.

Lending protocols represented by Aave are typical cases of this shift. Aave has real borrowing demand, real interest income, observable fee structures, and continuously iterating capital allocation mechanisms. DeFiLlama has broken down Aave's fees and revenue items; Aave V3's fee sources include borrowing interest, flash loan fees, liquidation fees, Paraswap exchange fees, and Chainlink SVR, etc.

This does not mean traditional financial valuation models can be simply applied to DeFi tokens. Governance tokens are not equal to stocks, and protocol revenue does not necessarily belong to token holders. But when the protocol's business model, revenue structure, and value capture mechanisms are clear enough, the cash flow framework will become increasingly important.

4.2 One Layer Deeper: Cash Flow Valuation Truly Tests the "Transmission Chain"

Regarding DeFi cash flow valuation, the point most easily misread is: as long as the protocol has revenue, tokens should be valued using traditional P/E or DCF. In fact, this is only the first layer. More important is identifying whether the chain of revenue transmission from protocol activity to token value is complete.

This transmission chain includes at least six links.

First, whether the protocol has real demand. Does revenue come from real user payments, or from short-term incentives, subsidies, speculative cycles, or single market sentiment? If revenue relies heavily on short-term trading heat, it is closer to cyclical revenue rather than capitalizable cash flow.

Second, whether the protocol can retain revenue. Many DeFi protocols have high total fees, but a significant portion needs to be paid to LPs, validators, market makers, liquidity providers, or external service providers. What is truly available for valuation is not gross fee, but the net income the protocol can retain and dispose of.

Third, whether revenue can cover risk costs. Lending protocols face bad debts, liquidation failures, oracle risks, and safety module expenditures; DEXs face liquidity subsidies and market-making costs; derivatives protocols face insurance fund pressure under extreme market conditions. Revenue models without risk costs easily overestimate protocol profitability.

Fourth, whether the DAO possesses capital allocation ability. After protocol revenue enters the treasury, is it used for buybacks, burning, incentives, safety reserves, developer expenditures, or ecosystem subsidies? Different allocation methods lead to completely different token value paths.

Fifth, whether the token has a clear value capture mechanism. Governance rights themselves are not equivalent to cash flow rights. Only when buybacks, burning, staking yields, fee rebates, or other mechanisms are clear enough can protocol revenue be more easily priced into the token by the market.

Sixth, whether regulation recognizes this value transmission. Governance tokens are different from traditional equity; token holders usually do not necessarily have legal claims to protocol assets or future cash flows. Therefore, legal structure and regulatory classification will directly affect whether institutional capital can price such assets with a lower discount rate.

Therefore, the key to DeFi cash flow valuation is not mechanically applying traditional financial models to tokens, but judging whether the protocol already possesses a complete chain of "real demand—income retention—risk deduction—governance allocation—token capture—legal interpretability."

4.2.1 Why Aave Has Become the Representative Case of an "On-Chain Bank"

Aave's business structure is relatively clear: depositors provide liquidity, borrowers borrow assets with collateral, and the protocol obtains cash flow through interest spreads, liquidation fees, flash loan fees, cooperation income, treasury yields, and GHO stablecoin income.

It is not a bank in the traditional sense because it has no centralized balance sheet and does not perform maturity mismatching in the traditional banking system; but from an economic function perspective, it indeed assumes the role of on-chain money market and collateral lending infrastructure.

Aave is different from pure narrative tokens; it has real usage scenarios and observable revenue sources. Borrowing interest, flash loan fees, liquidation fees, cooperation income, and stablecoin-related income jointly constitute the foundation of protocol cash flow.

Aave's specificity also lies in that it is at the intersection of RWA and DeFi.

First, stablecoins are an important foundation for Aave's lending activities. Stablecoins such as USDC, USDT, and GHO constitute the cash leg of the on-chain credit market.

Second, the development of institutional markets and permissioned pools gives protocols like Aave the opportunity to undertake compliant asset collateral financing demands. If tokenized treasuries, fund shares, private credit, and other compliant assets can be safely incorporated into permissioned markets, they will no longer be just certificates in wallets but can become underlying assets for on-chain credit expansion.

Third, Aave's product architecture is evolving from a single lending market to a more complete on-chain financial platform. Unified liquidity architecture, stablecoin business, safety modules, and user-side applications are all to enable the protocol to undertake more complex assets, more segmented risks, and broader user demands.

This also explains why Aave is regarded as an important case for DeFi cash flow valuation. RWA needs a protocol layer that can provide liquidity, collateral financing, and risk parameter management; lending protocols like Aave are precisely the potential undertaking layer.

4.2.2 Protocol Revenue Does Not Equal Token Value

Aave's case also reminds the market that there is no automatic equation between protocol revenue and token value. The protocol making money does not mean the governance token will appreciate in equal proportion. In between, it is necessary to consider how fees enter the DAO treasury, how the DAO decides on buybacks, incentives, insurance, safety expenditures, and product investment, whether token holders can stably capture protocol value through governance, and whether regulation recognizes this value transmission mechanism.

Therefore, the key to DeFi valuation is not revenue, but conversion rate, i.e., the conversion rate of protocol economic activity to token holder value.

Common paths include burning, buybacks, rebates, and staking yields. Burning affects long-term scarcity by reducing supply; buybacks form market buy orders through protocol income; rebates directly return part of fees to users or holders; staking enhances token utility through locking and yield distribution. The directness, sustainability, regulatory risk, and market impact of different mechanisms are completely different. The value transmission efficiency of mechanisms such as buybacks, burning, rebates, and staking rewards exists differences, and DAO expenditures, token emissions, and legal structure will all affect the final valuation result.

In the future, evaluating DeFi protocols cannot just look at TVL and revenue scale, but must establish a framework similar to "on-chain income statement + capital allocation table":

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

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

Third, net income represents how much remains after deducting incentives, safety, development, and operational expenses.

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

Fifth, value capture mechanisms represent how profits affect tokens.

Sixth, reinvestment efficiency represents whether retained profits improve future income ability.

This framework also applies to product analysis after the combination of RWA and DeFi. What is truly important in the future is not whether the protocol has scale, but whether scale can be converted into sustainable revenue, manageable risks, and value that can be captured by users or token holders.

5. Stablecoins, Regulation, and Risk Framework

5.1 Stablecoins Are the Common Underlying Assets of RWA and DeFi

The intersection of RWA and DeFi cannot do without stablecoins. Stablecoins are not only trading quotation units but also on-chain cash, collateral, settlement layers, and yield distribution media.

Without stablecoins, tokenized treasuries would hardly gain on-chain capital entry; without stablecoins, DeFi lending would hardly form stable loan demand; without stablecoins, cross-border payments, institutional settlements, and RWA secondary markets lack a unified cash leg.

Stablecoin regulatory clarity is a structural variable for both RWA and DeFi. For RWA, stablecoins provide compliant cash entry, subscription/redemption media, and on-chain settlement units. For DeFi, stablecoins provide low-volatility liabilities and lending demand foundations. For institutions, clear stablecoin regulation means they can more easily incorporate on-chain capital flows into compliance, audit, and risk control systems.

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

The first layer is compliant stablecoins and on-chain cash management, undertaking payments and settlements.

The second layer is tokenized treasuries, money market funds, private credit, gold, and securitized assets, undertaking yields and collateral.

The third layer is protocols such as Aave, Maple, Sky, Pendle, Uniswap, Hyperliquid, etc., undertaking lending, trading, interest rates, risks, and leverage.

The tighter these three layers are, the closer on-chain finance gets to a true capital market. Stablecoins solve the "money" problem, RWA solves the "asset" problem, and DeFi solves the "financial function" problem. Only when the three combine can a complete on-chain financial system be formed.

5.2 Risks of RWA and DeFi: Efficiency Increases, But Complexity Also Amplifies

The combination of RWA and DeFi is not without risks. On the contrary, it will superimpose off-chain financial risks, on-chain smart contract risks, market liquidity risks, and regulatory risks together.

In traditional finance, asset defaults, valuation markdowns, redemption runs, and regulatory reviews are already complex enough; if these risks enter a 7x24 hour, leveragable, composable, automatically liquidating DeFi environment, system reaction speeds will be faster, and risk transmission may also be stronger.

The first category of risk is asset authenticity and reserve risk. Whether corresponding assets truly exist behind tokenized assets, whether reserves are sufficient, whether custody is independent, whether audits are timely, and whether assets are re-pledged are all core issues. Stablecoins have already proven that reserve transparency is extremely important for market confidence, and RWA will face the same problem.

The second category of risk is liquidity mismatch. Many RWA underlying assets only trade on business days or redeem by cycle, but DeFi lending and derivatives markets operate 7x24 hours. If RWA is used for collateralized borrowing, once market pressure appears on weekends or holidays, oracle prices, redemption mechanisms, and liquidation processes may all appear mismatched.

The third category of risk is compliant composability risk. The advantage of open DeFi is permissionless composition, but RWA often requires whitelists, KYC, investor suitability, and jurisdiction restrictions. How to retain composability without breaking compliance is the difficulty of the entire RWAFi.

The fourth category of risk is DAO governance and value transmission risk. Whether protocol revenue should buy back tokens or be used for safety modules, user incentives, risk reserves, and product development is essentially a capital allocation problem. Low DAO voting rates, token concentration, stakeholder conflicts, and regulatory uncertainty may all affect valuation.

The fifth category of risk is oracle and pricing risk. RWA prices may come from NAV, exchange quotes, broker quotes, model valuations, or manual disclosure. Different price source delays, manipulation spaces, and update frequencies differ, directly affecting lending protocol liquidation safety.

Therefore, the combination of RWA and DeFi should not be simply understood as "traditional assets entering on-chain can release liquidity." True 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 Focus

6.1 The First Half of RWA is Issuance, the Second Half is Usage

RWA tokenization and DeFi cash flow valuation seem like two different themes, but they actually point to the same industry turning point: the crypto market is moving from "asset existence" to "asset utility," from "protocols being used" to "protocols being profitable," from "narrative premium" to "cash flow, governance, and compliance joint pricing."

The first phase of RWA proved assets can be on-chained, but the second phase must prove assets can create higher financial efficiency after being on-chained. The first phase of DeFi proved permissionless finance can operate, but the second phase must prove protocol revenue can be sustainable, risks can be managed, and value can be captured by tokens. Stablecoins are the base currency layer connecting these two phases.

The directions most worth paying attention to in the future are not simply "more assets on-chain," but five categories of scenarios that truly form financial depth:

First, tokenized treasuries entering on-chain collateral and repo markets.

Second, private credit combining with institutional lending protocols to form an on-chain fixed income market.

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

Fourth, compliant stocks and fund shares entering the 24/7 global trading and financing system.

Fifth, DeFi protocols entering the era of cash flow valuation through clear value capture mechanisms.

These directions jointly point to the same trend: the focus of RWA competition will shift from "on-chain speed" to "on-chain depth," and the focus of DeFi competition will shift from "TVL scale" to "cash flow quality."

6.2 The Product and Wealth Management Business Matrix Already Formed by HTX

From a business perspective, the development of RWA and DeFi does not only mean new asset narratives, but also means trading platform product systems need to extend from single trading entrances to asset allocation, yield management, on-chain participation, and risk layered entrances. HTX has already formed a product matrix covering basic wealth management, structured yields, on-chain yields, and collateral financing at the product level; these modules have a high correspondence with the core demands of the second half of RWA / DeFi.

First, HTX Earn has already assumed the role of a comprehensive yield entry point. In the HTX Earn product upgrade announcement, HTX reconstructed the Earn function into five core blocks, including Overview, Simple Earn, New Listings, Structured Products, and On-chain Earn. This structure essentially has split user yield demands into five scenarios: account yield overview, basic wealth management, new asset participation, structured yields, and on-chain yields.

Second, Simple Earn has already covered the basic wealth management layer. HTX official instructions show that Simple Earn includes flexible and fixed-term products; users can choose different terms based on liquidity demands. Against the background of continuous development of RWA and stablecoins, such products correspond to on-chain cash management and low-volatility yield demands. It is not directly issuing RWA, but in user experience assumes the function of "stablecoin and mainstream asset yield entrance."

Third, Structured Products have already covered the structured yield layer. HTX Earn product upgrade announcement shows that Structured Products integrate Dual Investment and Shark Fin and other structured earn products, providing users with richer risk-yield combinations. The significance of such products lies in that it brings users from single holding yields to a management framework of target prices, terms, volatility, and structured returns. As DeFi and RWA assets gradually mature, structured yield products are precisely the important product layer undertaking users with different risk preferences.

Fourth, On-chain Earn has already covered the on-chain yield layer. HTX Earn product upgrade announcement shows that On-chain Earn integrates ETH 2.0 node staking and other blockchain native yield services, providing users with on-chain asset growth channels. Such products correspond to the core trend of the second half of DeFi: users do not necessarily need to directly operate complex protocols but need a safer, clearer, more standardized entrance to participate in on-chain yields.

Fifth, Margin Swap has already covered the collateral financing and asset efficiency layer. HTX Margin Swap page shows that real-name authenticated users can exchange digital assets by pledging designated assets within the account; exchanged-in assets can arrive within a short time; this product supports flexible, 7-day, 30-day, 45-day, and 90-day terms, and supports multiple assets as collateral. The essence of such products is helping users improve capital usage efficiency without directly selling core assets, corresponding to the direction of "collateral financialization" in DeFi and RWA.

Therefore, HTX's business focus in the RWA and DeFi tracks is not staying at asset observation or trading matching, but has already formed a relatively complete user asset efficiency entrance through products such as Earn, Simple Earn, Structured Products, On-chain Earn, and Margin Swap.

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

First, cash management layer: through Simple Earn, flexible and fixed-term products, undertaking user demands for stablecoin and mainstream asset yields.

Second, yield structure layer: through Dual Investment, Shark Fin, and other products, expanding user yield management from single interest rates to target price, term, and volatility structures.

Third, on-chain yield layer: through On-chain Earn, PoS staking, and ETH 2.0 node staking, lowering the operational threshold for users participating in on-chain protocol yields.

Fourth, collateral efficiency layer: through Margin Swap and other products, allowing users to improve capital usage efficiency while retaining core asset exposure.

This also means that HTX has already covered in product form the most important categories of user demands in the second half of RWA and DeFi: low-volatility yields, structured yields, on-chain yields, collateral financing, and asset efficiency management. The second half of RWA is "usage," the second half of DeFi is "cash flow," and the productization ability of trading platforms is precisely the key connecting layer for these trends transforming from institutional narratives into financial products usable by ordinary users.

References

1. https://a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/tokenized-asset-rwa-market-data-charts/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. https://research.grayscale.com/reports/guide-to-buying-the-dip-valuing-crypto-with-cash-flows?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. https://www.grayscale.com/the-stack/how-to-value-digital-assets-with-cash-flows?utm_source=chatgpt.com
4. https://defillama.com/protocol/aave?utm_source=chatgpt.com
5. https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2026/bulletin-2026-3.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
6. https://www.htx.com/en-us/financial/earn/home
7. https://www.htx.com/support/44978464400614?utm_source=chatgpt.com
8. https://www.htx.com/support/85020287114222?utm_source=chatgpt.com