Reviewing HyperLiquid and Aster, we have found the correct answer for RWA
Author: Go2Mars Web3 Research
The true exit is structural migration, not emotional venting; acceptance, not popularity. The next phase of RWA is not a breakout point but an entry point; not a traffic channel but a systemic one.
In 2025, the hottest projects are HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many explanations for why they will explode in popularity, with some very niche perspectives, but perhaps a clearer understanding comes from viewing them from a product perspective. Once we interpret their core reasons, can we extend this logic to RWA DEXs? If so, how should we upgrade and evolve? In this article, we aim to clarify these points as much as possible.
Understanding the Core of HyperLiquid and Aster’s Explosive Growth
The fundamental reason HyperLiquid and Aster became popular boils down to one sentence: They are not “better DEXs,” but the first to put “sovereignty” of trading on the chain. Simply put, from a product perspective, it’s not about performance, fees, or UI/UX. It’s about: “Who controls the trading” has undergone a structural change.
Why did HyperLiquid explode?
You’ve probably heard these points: self-developed L1, high performance; CLOB that rivals CEXs with low latency, deep order books, excellent user experience; but these only explain “usability,” not “explosion.” Through Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute)’s in-depth study of HyperLiquid, we conclude that the real trigger is: HyperLiquid’s true breakthrough is: it changed the “trading sovereignty.”
In traditional CEX/DEXs, boundaries like listing, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and trading halts are all controlled by the platform. The actual control lies with the platform, and the platform is the ultimate authority. In other words, “participants in trading are just passive participants.”
What did HyperLiquid do? It disassembled “core exchange authority” into modules that can be constrained by on-chain rules. The key isn’t “decentralization,” but whether: rules can be unilaterally modified, and whether they can be artificially intervened in under extreme circumstances. HyperLiquid’s core signal is: “Even the system itself cannot arbitrarily change rules.”
Historically, before 2025, a recurring phenomenon is: too many trading interventions under the guise of “compliance/risk control/risk management.” The result of these interventions is: profits are rolled back, positions forcibly liquidated, markets paused, rules retroactively changed. This makes high-frequency, institutional, smart money realize for the first time: they are bearing “systemic 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. So HyperLiquid’s explosion isn’t about user numbers, but about: professional traders migrating, large funds willing to trade naked, strategies deployable long-term, system predictability extremely high—this is the on-chain “trust” of the exchange.
Why did Aster explode?
We can clearly see that Aster’s explosion is different from HyperLiquid’s. From the surface, Aster looks like: a new generation derivatives DEX, modular, good UX, innovative mechanism design. But in reality, these are not the core. Aster’s real focus is: “an upgrade in trading behavior abstraction,” summarized in one sentence: Aster isn’t selling “trades,” but “trading capability encapsulation.”
Traditional exchanges give users: order placement, order cancellation, leverage; while Aster provides: strategy-level interfaces, conditional execution, risk structure templates, behavior composition permissions. Simply put, users aren’t “trading,” but are “calling a set of ‘market behavior capabilities.’”
The reason Aster can explode is fundamentally because: users have changed. Most users are no longer novices or gamblers, but “strategy users/agents/automated systems,” and trading behavior is no longer manual but systematized. Aster’s essence is: providing a “legitimate, stable, composable execution environment” for AI / Bot / Agent / Quant.
Insights from HyperLiquid and Aster’s Products
Can these types of products continue? The answer is yes, of course. But not by copying their forms; what can be extended are three underlying logics: trading sovereignty must be verifiable, trading is not “page behavior,” but “system capability,” and exchanges are “systemic products.” HyperLiquid addresses “institutional distrust”: will the platform change rules? Aster addresses “lack of abstraction in trading capabilities”: can trading be system-called?
Previously, in an article titled “Web3 is entering the rule-generation phase,” published by Go2Mars PRI, we mentioned that the next stage of Web3 isn’t a breakout point but an entry point; not a traffic source but a systemic point.
With this understanding, we can grasp the core reasons behind HyperLiquid and Aster’s popularity. Now, can we leverage this logic to revisit the RWA sector, which has been hyped for over two years, and explore the direction of RWA exchanges?
Are there RWA exchanges?
Strictly speaking, there are almost no “true RWA exchanges” at present.
Why do the current so-called RWA DEXs/CEXs not resemble exchanges? Because they are mostly stuck on three issues: unclear legal responsibilities, incomplete liquidation and enforcement, and unnatural liquidity.
Let’s explain these three points:
- Unclear legal responsibilities: Who is the issuer? Who guarantees authenticity? Who is responsible for defaults? These are all ambiguous.
- Incomplete liquidation and enforcement: On-chain transactions, off-chain non-performance, ultimately relying on law; but when on-chain rules fail, it becomes a joke.
- Unnatural liquidity: No market makers, no continuous quotes, more like “private equity shares.”
Based on Go2Mars PRI’s research and historical review, we believe that “a true RWA exchange” must have: on-chain liquidation rights > off-chain ownership, defaults are automatable, and RWA itself is a “cash flow instrument,” not an “asset proof.” Here’s an explanation of these three core logics:
- On-chain liquidation rights > off-chain ownership: It’s not “I own this asset,” but “when rules are triggered, I have the right to execute a certain result.” For example: priority of returns, collateral disposal rights, cash flow distribution rights.
- Defaults are automatable: Default enforcement isn’t relying on law or courts but through: pledges, margins, risk pools, pre-emptive compensation—front-loading the cost of default rather than chasing after accountability afterward.
- RWA is a “cash flow tool,” not an “asset proof”: RWA trading isn’t about “houses/debts,” but about “cash flow priority rights.” This refers to who gets paid first, how much, and who bears what risks—a reorganization of risk and return. The core is: the reordering of cash flows. This is the key point of RWA.
Are there products close to this ideal? Yes, but they are still in semi-finished stages. They often don’t call themselves exchanges or emphasize RWA but are already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk layering, automatic liquidation. So, in the future, genuine RWA exchanges probably won’t be called RWA exchanges.
For RWA and RWA exchanges, the challenge isn’t “asset on-chain,” because that’s very simple. The real challenge is: “systematic responsibility, liquidation, and default on-chain.” Can defaults, enforcement, and cash flow priority be programmatically managed?
Conclusion: The Endgame of RWA is not “asset on-chain,” but “system on-chain.”
Looking back at HyperLiquid and Aster’s explosive growth, they aren’t about “building a better exchange,” but about accomplishing a deeper goal—turning exchange rules into on-chain protocols.
HyperLiquid addresses: will the platform change rules? Aster addresses: can trading be system-called? The real challenge for RWA exchanges is even harder: can defaults, responsibilities, and cash flow priorities be fully managed by code? If not, RWA will forever be just “asset display layers.” If yes, RWA will evolve into a “systemic financial layer.”
Over the past two years, the market’s focus has been on “asset on-chain” — real estate, debt, notes, funds, revenue rights, mines, power plants… but these are superficial. The truly valuable part isn’t asset proof but the execution structure of cash flows. Who gets paid first? Who bears the first loss? What triggers default? Is execution automatic? Is liquidation irreversible? These are fundamentally “system issues,” not “asset issues.” If defaults still rely on courts, performance depends on human judgment, and liquidation can be negotiated, then what we call RWA DEX is just a traditional financial product with a blockchain UI. That’s not an upgrade but a packaging.
The real RWA exchange might not look like what we’re used to. It may not emphasize “decentralization,” nor focus on “diverse asset types,” or even be called an “exchange.” But it must have three features: rules precede assets, liquidation rights outweigh ownership, and default costs are front-loaded rather than after-the-fact accountability. When these conditions are met, RWA is no longer “private placement on chain,” but a market for composable cash flows. The trading object shifts from “a project” to “a risk structure.” It’s not about “buying assets,” but “buying a cash flow priority.”
If Web3 is entering a “rules generation phase,” then RWA’s mission is to: transform the core, most hidden, and most human parts of traditional finance—default handling and return prioritization—into verifiable, composable, executable program structures. When the system itself becomes a product, when liquidation logic becomes an interface, and when risk structures can be assembled like Lego blocks, RWA will truly become a new financial paradigm, not just an old financial shell.
Perhaps, the true RWA exchange won’t grow through “asset size” but through “system trustworthiness.” Just as HyperLiquid attracted professional traders’ migration, the future RWA market will attract: capital unwilling to bear systemic risk, institutions seeking transparent risk structures, and AI/Agent/Quant systems needing programmable cash flows. When cash flows can be understood algorithmically, defaults can be automatically executed, and liquidation can be pre-priced, that will be the real explosion point for RWA.
So, the question isn’t whether RWA can build an exchange, but: who will be the first to fully embed “responsibility, default, and liquidation” into on-chain rules? When that day arrives, RWA will no longer be just a narrative segment but a foundational layer of systemic finance. That will be the true upgrade and evolution.