Real-world assets are definitely breaking into the mainstream now. The thing is, RWAs work best when they're being used as collateral—that's where the real utility kicks in.



Here's the key: wherever you've got collateral on a protocol, there's debt sitting underneath it. The debt amount and terms shift depending on which protocol you're working with. Different DeFi platforms structure their collateral requirements differently, which means the risk models and liquidation thresholds vary too.

So the real question becomes: how each protocol designs its debt mechanics around RWA collateral. That's where the protocol's risk management framework really shows itself.
WORK-20.28%
IN-5.29%
ON1.97%
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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
TradFiRefugeevip
· 6h ago
Using RWA as collateral is indeed interesting, but the real risk depends on how each protocol designs its debt model... that's the key factor determining success or failure.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationTherapistvip
· 6h ago
To be honest, RWA as collateral does have some merit, but the liquidation thresholds across different protocols vary so much—are you really willing to play with that?
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationWizardvip
· 6h ago
Honestly, using RWA as collateral is the only interesting use case; other approaches are just for show. The key is that each protocol's debt design varies greatly, and a small mistake can lead to a disaster. This is the true test of a team's expertise. Protocols boast elaborate risk control frameworks, but in the end, it all comes down to whether the liquidation mechanism is tough enough. RWA has become popular, but only true warriors dare to leverage on it... This logic makes sense, but it seems most newcomers still can't distinguish the risk differences between protocols. Someone will inevitably suffer significant losses sooner or later.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHermitvip
· 6h ago
rwa as collateral, I don't quite understand this part. It seems that the risk models vary for each protocol, and the liquidation thresholds are also different? Who can make sense of this?
View OriginalReply0
hodl_therapistvip
· 6h ago
In plain terms, RWA only has value as collateral, but the debt risk really varies depending on the protocol... Some platforms set liquidation thresholds ridiculously high, and sooner or later, you'll get caught in a trap.
View OriginalReply0
Layer3Dreamervip
· 6h ago
theoretically speaking, if we model RWA collateral as a recursive debt function across heterogeneous protocols... the interoperability vector here is wild. different liquidation thresholds = different risk surfaces, which basically means we need cross-rollup state verification to even compare them properly ngl
Reply0
MEVHunterXvip
· 6h ago
Using RWA as collateral is indeed crucial, but the real pitfall lies in the differences in debt design across various protocols... If the risk model is set improperly, the liquidation threshold can easily trigger a failure.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)