The real exit is structural migration, not emotional venting; it is acceptance, not adulation. The next stage of RWA is not an explosion point, but an entry point; not a flow mouth, but an institutional mouth.

In 2025, nothing will be hotter than HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many explanations from the outside about why they will become popular, with various angles of approach, but the essence of their popularity may be easier to understand from a product perspective. After the interpretation, can we derive this to RWA DEX? If so, how should we upgrade and derive it? In this article, we will try to clarify as much as possible. Interpreting the Essence of HyperLiquid and Aster's Popularity The fundamental reason for the popularity of Aster and Hyperliquid can be summed up in one sentence: they are not "better DEXs," but "the first to place the 'sovereignty' of exchanges on-chain." Simply put, from a product perspective, it is not about performance, fees, or UI/UX. Rather, it is about: "who controls the transaction" has undergone a structural change. Why is HyperLiquid so popular?

You have certainly heard these: self-developed L1, high performance; CLOB done like CEX, low latency, good depth, excellent user experience; but these only explain "usability," not "popularity." After in-depth research on HyperLiquid by Go2 Mars PRI (Product Research Institute), a conclusion was reached: the real breakthrough of HyperLiquid is that it changes the "sovereignty of trading."

In traditional CEX/DEX, the boundaries related to trading, such as listing, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and trading suspensions, are all controlled by the platform. The actual controllers are also the platform, in other words, "users participating in trading are merely passive participants."

What did Hyperliquid do? It broke down the "core powers of the exchange" 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 situations; Hyperliquid's core signal is: "even the system itself cannot change the rules at will."

In 2025 and in the history leading up to it, a certain type of event often occurs: too many trading interventions under the guise of "compliance/risk control/risk management." The result of these interventions is that profits are rolled back, positions are liquidated, markets are suspended, and rules are retroactively modified, which makes high-frequency traders/institutions/smart money realize for the first time: they bear "institutional risk," not market risk.

The essential attraction of Hyperliquid is that I only bear market risk, not the platform's will. This is a qualitative change of the product itself. Therefore, Hyperliquid's explosion is not about the number of users, but about: professional traders migrating, large funds willing to run bare, strategies being deployable long-term, and the system being highly predictable, which is the on-chain manifestation of "exchange credit." Why is Aster so popular?

We can clearly see that Aster's popularity is different from Hyperliquid's. On the surface, Aster appears to be: a new generation derivatives DEX, modular, good UX, and innovative mechanism design, but in reality, these are not the core. The real point Aster hits is: "the abstract upgrade of trading behavior," summarized in one sentence: Aster is not selling trading, but "the encapsulation of trading capabilities."

Traditional exchanges provide users with: order rights, cancellation rights, leverage rights; while Aster provides users with: strategy-level interfaces, conditional execution, risk structure templates, and behavioral combination permissions. In simple terms: users are not "trading," but are invoking a set of "market behavior capabilities."

The reason Aster can become popular is fundamentally because: users have changed; most users are not novices, not gamblers, but "strategy users/agents/automated systems," and trading behavior is no longer manual but systematic. Aster essentially provides AI/Bot/Agent/Quant with a "legal, stable, and combinable trading execution environment."

Product Inspirations from Hyperliquid and Aster

Can this type of product continue? The answer is yes, of course, but it should not be a mere copy. What can continue is not the form, but three underlying logics: trading sovereignty must be verifiable, trading is not "page behavior," but "system capability," and the exchange itself is an "institutional product"; Hyperliquid actually addresses "institutional untrustworthiness," solving the question: will the platform change the rules? Aster addresses "the inadequacy of abstract trading capabilities," solving the question: can trading be invoked by the system?

Previously, we at Go2 Mars PRI published an article titled "Web 3 is Entering the Rule Generation Period," which mentioned that the next stage of Web 3 is not an explosion point, but an entry point; not a flow mouth, but an institutional mouth.

Thus, we basically understand the fundamental reasons for the popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster. Can we use this logic to return to the RWA sector, which has been hyped for over two years, to explore the directional judgment of RWA exchanges?

Do RWA Exchanges Exist?

In a strict sense, "real RWA exchanges" almost do not exist as of now.

Why do the so-called RWA DEX/CEX we see now "not look like exchanges"? Because they are mostly stuck on three issues: unclear legal responsibilities, non-closed-loop clearing and execution, and unnatural liquidity.

Let’s explain these three issues:

1. Unclear legal responsibilities: Who is the issuer, who guarantees authenticity, who is responsible for defaults? These are all unclear.

2. Non-closed-loop clearing and execution: On-chain transactions, off-chain non-performance, ultimately relying on law, and finally, on-chain rules become ineffective, turning into a complete joke.

3. Unnatural liquidity: No market making, no continuous quotes, more like "private placement shares."

Based on research and historical retrospection by Go2 Mars PRI, we believe that a "real RWA exchange" must possess: on-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership, defaults must be automatable, and RWA itself is a "cash flow tool," not an "asset proof." We will explain these three basic logics:

1. On-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership: It is not "I have this asset," but "when the rules are triggered, I have the right to execute a certain result." For example: priority of income, collateral disposal rights, cash flow distribution rights.

2. Defaults must be automatable: The execution of defaults here certainly does not rely on law or courts, but through: pledges, margins, risk pools, and prepayment, placing the cost of default upfront, rather than pursuing accountability afterward.

3. RWA itself is a "cash flow tool," not an "asset proof": What RWA can trade is not "houses/debts," but "the rights of cash flow ordering." The rights of cash flow ordering refer to the agreements on who gets paid first, how much they get, and what risks they bear. The core lies in the recombination of risks and returns; the rights of cash flow ordering can be said to be the focus of RWA.

So, based on the current situation, are there products that are "close to the correct form"? The answer is yes, but they are still in a semi-finished stage. They usually manifest as: not calling themselves exchanges, not emphasizing RWA, but already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk layering, automatic clearing. Therefore, the future real RWA exchanges may not be called RWA exchanges.

For RWA and RWA exchanges, the issue to solve is not "putting assets on-chain," because putting assets on-chain is a very simple matter, but rather to solve "the institutional on-chain of responsibilities, clearing, and defaults." Can defaults, execution, and cash flow ordering be taken over by programs?

Conclusion: The Endgame of RWA is not "Assets on-chain," but "Institutions on-chain"

When we look back at the popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster, essentially they are not "creating a better exchange," but completing a deeper task—turning the institution of exchanges into on-chain rules.

Hyperliquid addresses: will the platform change the rules? Aster addresses: can trading be invoked by the system? The real challenge for a true RWA exchange is a more difficult question: can defaults, responsibilities, and cash flow ordering be taken over by programs? If this question cannot be solved, RWA will always be just an "asset display layer"; if this question is solved, RWA will become an "institutional financial layer."

In the past two years, the market has focused on "how to put assets on-chain"—real estate, debts, bills, fund shares, income rights, mines, power plants… but these are merely superficial. What is truly valuable is not asset proof, but the execution structure of cash flow. Who gets allocated first? Who bears the first loss? What are the conditions for triggering a default? Is execution automatic? Is clearing irreversible? These questions are essentially "institutional issues," not "asset issues." If defaults still have to return to the courts, if performance still relies on human judgment, if clearing can still be negotiated and modified—then the so-called RWA DEX is just a traditional financial product with a blockchain UI. That is not an upgrade, but packaging.

The real RWA exchange may not grow into a form we are familiar with. It may not emphasize "decentralization," may not focus on "a rich variety of assets," and may not even be called an "exchange." But it must possess three things: rules exist prior to assets, clearing rights outweigh ownership, and default costs are placed upfront, rather than pursued afterward; when these conditions are met, RWA will not be "private placement shares on-chain," but a combinable cash flow market. At that time, the object of trading will no longer be "a certain project," but "a certain risk structure." It is not "buying assets," but "buying a right to cash flow ordering."

If Web3 is entering a "rule generation period," then the mission of RWA is to transform the most core, hidden, and human parts of traditional finance—default handling and income ordering—into verifiable, combinable, and executable program structures. When the institution itself becomes a product, when clearing logic becomes an interface, and when risk structures can be pieced together like Lego, RWA will truly become a new financial paradigm, rather than a shell of old finance.

Perhaps the real RWA exchange will not explode in "asset scale," but will attract capital with "institutional credibility." Just as Hyperliquid attracts the migration of professional traders, the future RWA structural market will attract: capital unwilling to bear institutional risks, institutions seeking transparent risk structures, and AI/Agent/Quant systems needing programmable cash flows. When cash flows can be understood by algorithms, when defaults can be executed automatically, and when clearing can be priced in advance, that will be the real breakthrough of RWA.

So, the question is not: can RWA create an exchange? But rather: who can be the first to thoroughly write "responsibility, defaults, and clearing" into on-chain rules? When that day comes, RWA will no longer be a narrative sector, but will become the new foundational layer of institutional finance. And that, is the true upgrade and derivation.