一场新的P2P骗局，正在酝酿？

Core Insights - RWA (Real World Assets) has emerged as a hot topic in the financial sector, with predictions from BCG estimating the market size could reach $16 trillion by 2030, equivalent to 10% of global GDP [1] - The article raises questions about the fundamental differences between RWA and the failed P2P lending model, particularly regarding asset transparency and trust [1][5] - RWA is defined as the tokenization of tangible and intangible assets, allowing for fractional ownership and broader participation in investments [3][4] Group 1: RWA Definition and Mechanism - RWA refers to tangible assets like real estate and gold, as well as intangible assets like bonds and intellectual property [1] - The tokenization process allows traditional assets to be divided into smaller shares, making them accessible to a wider range of investors [3] - RWA utilizes blockchain technology and smart contracts to enhance transparency and automate transactions, reducing reliance on traditional financial intermediaries [4][7] Group 2: Comparison with P2P Lending - RWA is seen as an evolution of the P2P model, addressing issues of credit risk and information opacity by using verified assets as collateral [4][6] - Unlike P2P, which relied on borrower creditworthiness, RWA uses tangible assets to ensure reliability and control over risks [4][6] - The global nature of RWA introduces new risks, as it can lead to a "legal island" scenario where regulatory oversight becomes complicated [10][11] Group 3: Market Dynamics and Geopolitical Implications - The RWA market is significantly influenced by state-backed assets, with a notable share of the market being driven by U.S. Treasury tokenization [12][13] - RWA facilitates capital flow into U.S. assets, potentially undermining the financial sovereignty of non-U.S. economies [13][14] - Countries are facing a dilemma between embracing RWA for economic benefits and protecting their financial systems from external influences [15][16] Group 4: Risks and Challenges - Despite improvements over P2P, RWA still faces risks related to asset authenticity and liquidity, particularly with non-standardized assets [6][9] - The potential for "pseudo-RWA" projects that lack real asset backing poses a significant threat to investors [8] - The article emphasizes the need for investors to understand the underlying assets in RWA investments to avoid pitfalls similar to those experienced in P2P lending [17]