RWA Indicator Watering Concerns: DefiLlama Accuses Figure of Pressuring for Listing

One of the greatest values of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is that all data can be publicly verified. However, when Real World Assets (RWA) projects flood into the Blockchain, it has brought about an unprecedented "data black box." Recently, the dispute between the data platform DefiLlama and the RWA platform Figure revealed that certain projects create illusions through "inflated data" and "internal ledgers on-chain," reminding the market once again: not all projects that carry the RWA banner truly represent transparent and credible financial innovation.

RWA Data Transparency Crisis: Inflated TVL

In DeFi, TVL (Total Value Locked) can be directly verified: users can view the assets within the smart contracts. However, RWA is completely different. Many projects claim to have substantial assets on-chain, but in reality, they are merely "mirroring" internal data to the blockchain, lacking real transactions or holders.

For example, on rwa.xyz, ZKSync is listed as the second largest chain for RWA, just behind Ethereum, showing over $200 million in assets. However, the DefiLlama team found that most of these tokens have only 10-11 holders, with almost no transfer or trading activity, and they lack even the ability to pay for Gas. In other words, these "assets" are more like an internal digital game rather than tradable on-chain assets.

Behind the illusion: TVL has become a "data decoration"

DefiLlama criticized that this operation completely distorts the meaning of TVL. Theoretically, TVL should reflect the market's trust and risk assumption for a certain project. However, when "TVL" consists only of tokens minted by a single institution and placed in a dead wallet address, the market actually has no risk exposure. If users mistakenly believe that these numbers represent real adoption, they may invest based on erroneous premises and ultimately "get harvested."

Figure controversy: claiming 12 billion USD RWA, but on-chain data is difficult to substantiate.

The core contradiction of the event lies in Figure. The company claims to have issued $12 billion of RWA on-chain, but DefiLlama found many inconsistencies in the data during the due diligence process:

The exchange of Figure has only about 5 million USD in BTC and 4 million USD in ETH deposits, with extremely low trading volume.

The self-issued stablecoin YLDS used for trading has a supply of only about 20 million USD, which is completely mismatched with the scale of 12 billion USD.

Many RWA related transactions are not operated by the actual holders, but are handled by other accounts.

The vast majority of loan processes are still completed in the fiat currency system, and there are almost no corresponding payment records on the blockchain.

In simple terms, Figure's "on-chain $12 billion RWA" looks more like digital transportation of an internal system rather than asset circulation with real user participation.

Public Relations Warfare and Pressure: DefiLlama's Counterattack

DefiLlama stated that it has been discussing technical and data concerns with the Figure team in their Telegram group for a long time. However, a member of Figure publicly accused DefiLlama of "refusing to list Figure because its Twitter follower count is too low," which even led to other crypto institutions and investors applying private pressure.

In response, DefiLlama founder 0xngmi stated that this is "absurd lies": the platform has never charged any listing fees, nor does it decide whether to include a project based on the size of the community. The reason for rejecting Figure is that the data did not pass strict due diligence, not because of marketing or community influence.

If DefiLlama compromises, it will mislead users and lead investors to misjudge market adoption.

The next step for RWA: Transparency is the key to gaining trust.

This controversy highlights a key issue: Does putting RWA on-chain truly represent transparency and decentralization? When data can only be provided unilaterally by the issuer, and there is a lack of on-chain verifiable liquidity and user participation, the "value" of RWA is likely just a castle in the air.

DefiLlama emphasizes that their goal is not to hinder the development of RWA, but to ensure the authenticity of the data so that users do not misjudge investment risks due to illusions.

For investors, this debate is a wake-up call: not all "on-chain assets" are verifiable real assets, especially when the TVL appears large but lacks trading depth and user base, it is even more necessary to maintain a skeptical attitude.

This article raises suspicions about RWA metrics being inflated: DefiLlama accuses Figure of pressuring for listing, first appearing in Chain News ABMedia.