2025-12-30 03:23:22

There is a story that has been circulating in the industry. A trader who has been working in a major investment bank for over ten years, on this day, opened the DeFi data dashboard for the first time. Instead of mocking it openly as outsiders might expect, he stared at the screen in silence for nearly a minute, and finally blurted out: "This thing... where is the underlying proof of assets?"

Just this one sentence actually hits the core issue of the so-called "real-world asset tokenization" wave.

In the past two years, the news has been constantly touting "tokenized bonds"

DEFI-1.03%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WhaleStalker

· 16h ago

Where the principal is remains the real question --- Tokenized bonds sound pretty sexy, but what about in reality? --- An old investment banker’s one sentence exposes the whole story --- Blowing the same rhetoric for two years, really daring --- Can't even figure out the underlying proof, and still talk about tokenization --- That's why I don't mess with those flashy things --- From an investment bank's perspective, it's indeed outrageous. Without asset backing, why trust it? --- Tokenized bonds? First, clarify the basic logic before talking --- One question reveals the hypocrisy of the entire industry --- This story is amazing. Seeing through the essence at a glance

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeNFTs

· 16h ago

The underlying credential issue is indeed unavoidable. To put it simply, it's still lacking a true asset backing. It's just hype around concepts again. That's why traditional finance doesn't look favorably upon us. If the credential problem can't be solved, what's the point of tokenizing? It seems like DIFI is still just self-indulgence...

View OriginalReply0

LadderToolGuy

· 16h ago

Really? That's a very sharp question... The core proof of underlying assets is the real Achilles' heel. We've been hearing about RWA for two years, but no one can clearly explain how to endorse it. This trader's statement is a real knockout; I also want to know. We've been hyping it up for so long, but haven't seen anything truly trustworthy. By the way, isn't DeFi all about removing intermediaries? Now they're trying to recreate proof of assets? It feels a bit ironic. This question from the veteran is exactly the key—it's just wealth on paper.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 16h ago

That’s a really sharp statement, hitting the nail on the head. Traditional finance people have seen through this layer of deception; well-asked questions. Tokenized bonds have been hyped for so long, but what about the underlying asset collateral? If the certificate issue isn’t resolved, everything is just a castle in the air. This is what DeFi needs to take seriously, not just hype concepts.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-e19e9c10

· 16h ago

I'll say it directly, I’ve been thinking for a long time about the question this trader asked. The underlying proof... actually, the whole story isn’t finished yet. After talking about RWA for so long, it all comes down to this question that still hasn’t been answered. They’re starting to apply traditional financial logic again, which is interesting. Tokenized bonds sound impressive, but the real issue is exposed in just one sentence. That’s why I’ve always been a bit skeptical about the so-called on-chain asset tokenization. To put it simply, the trust foundation is still虚的

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterZhang

· 16h ago

Ha, this trader's question is spot on—right to the point. The underlying proof-of-asset thing is indeed a big pitfall. We've been hyping RWA for two years, but it feels like just hype. Tokens are just moving on the chain; where are the real assets? That's really awkward.

View OriginalReply0