Starting from HyperLiquid: What Kind of Exchange Does RWA Truly Need?

In 2025, the hottest topics were undoubtedly HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many external explanations for their explosive popularity, with some rather unique perspectives. However, to understand the fundamental reasons for their success, it might be easier to look at it from a product perspective. After interpreting this, can we extend this logic to RWA DEXes? If so, how should we approach upgrading and extending it? This article aims to clarify these points as much as possible.

Interpreting the Essence of HyperLiquid and Aster's Explosive Popularity

The fundamental reason for the explosive popularity of Aster and Hyperliquid can be summed up in one sentence: They are not "better DEXes," but rather "the first to place the [sovereignty] of an exchange on-chain." Simply put, from a product perspective, it's not about performance, fees, or UI/UX. It's that: There has been a structural change in "who controls trading."

Why Did HyperLiquid Explode in Popularity?

You've probably heard these points: a self-developed L1 with high performance; a CLOB that feels like a CEX with low latency, good depth, and excellent user experience. But these only explain why it's "good to use," not why it "exploded in popularity." After in-depth research on HyperLiquid by the Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute), a conclusion was reached: The real explosive point of HyperLiquid is that it changed "trading sovereignty."

In traditional CEXes/DEXes, boundaries related to trading—such as listing, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and trading suspensions—are actually controlled by the platform. The actual controller is the platform. In other words, "users participating in trading are merely passive participants."

What did Hyperliquid do? It broke down the "core powers of an exchange" into modules that can be constrained by on-chain rules. The key isn't "decentralization," but rather: Can the rules be unilaterally modified? Can they be manually intervened in extreme situations? Hyperliquid's core signal is: "Even the system itself cannot arbitrarily change the rules."

Throughout 2025 and earlier history, one type of event frequently occurred: too many trading interventions in the name of "compliance / risk control / risk management." The result of such actions is that profits are rolled back, positions are liquidated, markets are halted, and rules are retroactively changed. This made high-frequency traders / institutions / smart money realize for the first time: they were bearing "institutional risk," not market risk.

The essential appeal of Hyperliquid is "I only bear market risk, not platform will." This is a qualitative change in the product itself. Therefore, what exploded for Hyperliquid wasn't user count, but rather: the migration of professional traders, large capital willing to operate naked, strategies that can be deployed long-term, and extremely strong system predictability. This is the "on-chain-ization of exchange credit."

Why Did Aster Explode in Popularity?

We can clearly understand one thing: Aster's explosive popularity is different from Hyperliquid's. On the surface, the Aster product appears to be: a new-generation derivatives DEX, modular, with good UX, and novel mechanism design. But in reality, these are not the core reasons. The point Aster truly hit is: "The abstract upgrade of trading behavior." To summarize in one sentence: Aster isn't selling trading; it's selling "the encapsulation of trading capability."

Traditional exchanges give users: order placement rights, order cancellation rights, leverage rights. Aster gives users: strategy-level interfaces, conditional execution, risk structure templates, and behavioral combination permissions. Simply put, users are not "trading"; they are: invoking a set of "market behavior capabilities."

The reason Aster was able to explode in popularity is essentially because: users have changed. Most users are not novices or gamblers, but rather "strategy users / agents / automated systems." Trading behavior is no longer manual; it's systematic. Aster is essentially: providing a "legal, stable, and composable trading execution environment" for AI / Bots / Agents / quantitative systems.

Product Insights from Hyperliquid and Aster

Can this type of product continue? The answer is yes, of course. But not by copying them directly. What can continue is not the form, but three underlying logics: trading sovereignty must be verifiable; trading is not a "page behavior" but a "system capability"; an exchange itself is an "institutional product." Hyperliquid actually solves the issue of "institutional untrustworthiness." It addresses: Will the platform change the rules? Aster solves the issue of "insufficient abstraction of trading capability." It addresses: Can trading be invoked by a system?

Previously, in an article published by Go2Mars PRI titled "Web3 is Entering the Rule Generation Period," it was mentioned that the next stage of Web3 is not an explosion point, but an access point; not a traffic portal, but an institutional portal.

Now that we basically understand the fundamental reasons for Hyperliquid and Aster's explosive popularity, can we use this logic to return to the RWA sector, which has been hyped for over two years, and explore the direction of RWA exchanges?

Do RWA Exchanges Exist?

Strictly speaking, "true RWA exchanges" hardly exist to date.

Why do the so-called RWA DEXes/CEXes we see now "not look like exchanges"? Because most are stuck on three things: unclear legal liability, non-closed-loop clearing and execution, and unnatural liquidity.

Let's explain these three things separately:

1. Unclear Legal Liability: Who is the issuer? Who guarantees authenticity? Who is responsible for defaults? These are not clear.
2. Non-Closed-Loop Clearing and Execution: On-chain settlement, off-chain non-performance, ultimately relying on law, rendering on-chain rules ineffective—it becomes a complete joke.
3. Unnatural Liquidity: No market making, no continuous quoting, more like "private placement shares."

Based on research and historical review by Go2Mars PRI, we believe a "true RWA exchange" must possess: on-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership; defaults can be handled automatically; RWA itself is a "cash flow instrument," not an "asset certificate." Let's explain these three basic logics:

1. On-Chain Clearing Rights > Off-Chain Ownership: It's not "I own this asset," but rather: "When rules are triggered, I have the right to execute a certain outcome." For example: profit priority, collateral disposal rights, cash flow distribution rights.
2. Defaults Can Be Handled Automatically: Default execution here certainly doesn't rely on law or courts, but rather on: staking, margin, risk pools, advance compensation, front-loading default costs instead of pursuing accountability after the fact.
3. RWA Itself is a "Cash Flow Instrument," Not an "Asset Certificate": What can be traded in RWA is not "real estate / debt," etc., but "cash flow prioritization rights." Cash flow prioritization rights refer to the agreement on who gets paid first, how much, and how much risk they bear. The core lies in the recombination of risk and return. Cash flow prioritization rights can be said to be the most crucial point within RWA.

So, based on the current situation, are there products "close to the correct form"? The answer is yes, but they are still in the semi-finished product stage. They typically manifest as: not called exchanges, not emphasizing RWA, but already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk layering, automatic clearing. Therefore, in the future, true RWA exchanges likely won't be called RWA exchanges.

For RWA and RWA exchanges, the problem to solve is not "asset tokenization," because that is a very simple task. The problem to solve is "the on-chain-ization of the institutions of liability, clearing, and default." Can default, execution, and cash flow prioritization be taken over and executed by programs?

Conclusion: The Endgame of RWA is Not "Asset Tokenization," but "Institutional Tokenization"

Looking back at the explosive popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster, essentially they were not "building a better exchange," but accomplishing something deeper—turning the institution of an exchange into on-chain rules.

Hyperliquid solves: Will the platform change the rules? Aster solves: Can trading be invoked by a system? What a true RWA exchange needs to solve is a harder problem: Can default, liability, and cash flow prioritization be taken over by programs? If this problem cannot be solved, RWA will forever remain an "asset display layer." If this problem is solved, RWA will become an "institutional finance layer."

Over the past two years, the market focused attention on "how to tokenize assets"—real estate, debt, notes, fund shares, income rights, mines, power plants... But these are just appearances. What is truly valuable is not the asset certificate, but the execution structure of cash flows. Who gets distributed first? Who bears the first loss? What are the default trigger conditions? Is execution automatic? Is clearing irreversible? These questions are essentially "institutional problems," not "asset problems." If defaults still have to go back to court, 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's not an upgrade; it's packaging.

A true RWA exchange might not look like what we're familiar with. It might not emphasize "decentralization," might not promote "rich asset variety," and might not even be called an "exchange." But it must possess three things: rules exist before assets, clearing rights outweigh ownership, default costs are front-loaded instead of pursued after the fact. When these conditions are met, RWA will no longer be "on-chain private placement shares," but a composable cash flow market. Then, the object of trading will no longer be "a certain project," but "a certain risk structure." Not "buying an asset," but "buying a segment of cash flow prioritization rights."

If Web3 is entering the "rule generation period," then RWA's mission is: to transform the most core, most hidden, and most human parts of traditional finance—default handling and profit prioritization—into verifiable, composable, and executable program structures. When the institution itself becomes the product, when clearing logic becomes an interface, when risk structures can be pieced together like Lego, RWA will truly become a new financial paradigm, not a shell of old finance.

Perhaps, a true RWA exchange won't explode with "asset scale," but will attract capital with "institutional credibility." Just as Hyperliquid attracted the migration of professional traders, the future RWA structure market will attract: capital unwilling to bear institutional risk, institutions hoping for transparent risk structures, and AI / Agent / quantitative systems needing programmable cash flows. When cash flows can be understood by algorithms, when defaults can be executed automatically, when clearing can be priced in advance—that will be the true explosive point for RWA.

So, the question is not: Can RWA build an exchange? Rather, it is: Who will be the first to thoroughly write "liability, default, and clearing" into on-chain rules? When that day comes, RWA will no longer be a narrative sector, but will become a new institutional financial base layer. And that is the true upgrade and evolution.