Starting from HyperLiquid: What is the exchange that RWA truly needs?

The hottest topics in 2025 are HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many explanations for why they exploded in popularity, with some very niche perspectives, but perhaps the core reason for their surge can be better understood from a product perspective. Once we understand this, can we extend the insights to RWA DEXs? If so, how should we upgrade and evolve them? 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 behind the rise of Aster and HyperLiquid can be summarized in one sentence: They are not “better DEXs,” but the first to put the “sovereignty” of trading on the chain. Simply put, from a product standpoint, it’s not about performance, fees, or UI/UX. Instead, it’s about: “Who controls the trading” has undergone a structural change.

Why did HyperLiquid explode in popularity?

You’ve probably heard these points: self-developed L1 with high performance; CLOB that rivals CEXs with low latency, deep order books, and excellent user experience; but these only explain “ease of use,” not “explosive growth.” Through in-depth research by Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute), a conclusion was reached: HyperLiquid’s real breakthrough is: it changes the “trading sovereignty.”

In traditional CEXs/DEXs, the boundaries related to listing, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and trading pauses are all under the platform’s control. The actual authority lies with the platform, and the platform’s participants are just “passive participants.”

What has HyperLiquid done? It has broken down the “core authority of the exchange” 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 the rules.”

Historically, before and around 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 are forcibly liquidated, markets are paused, rules are retroactively changed. This makes high-frequency traders, institutions, and smart money realize for the first time: they are bearing “systemic risk,” not market risk.

The true appeal of HyperLiquid is: “I only bear market risk, not platform will.” This is a fundamental transformation of the product itself. Therefore, HyperLiquid’s explosion isn’t driven by user numbers, but by: professional traders migrating, large funds willing to trade naked, strategies deployable long-term, and system predictability being extremely high. This is the on-chainization of “exchange credit.”

Why did Aster explode in popularity?

One thing is clear: Aster’s rise is different from HyperLiquid’s. On the surface, Aster appears to be: a new generation of derivative DEXs, modular, with good UX, and innovative mechanisms. But in reality, these are not the core. Aster’s true focus is: “An upgrade in the abstraction of trading behavior,” summarized in one sentence: Aster is not selling “trades,” but “encapsulation of trading capabilities.”

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 are not just “trading,” but are “calling a set of ‘market behavior capabilities.’”

The reason Aster can explode in popularity fundamentally comes down to: the users have changed. Most users are not 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 trading execution environment” for AI, bots, agents, and quant systems.

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: the trading sovereignty must be verifiable, trading is not “page behavior,” but “system capability,” and the exchange itself is a “systemic product.” HyperLiquid addresses the issue of “institutional distrust,” solving whether the platform will change rules. Aster addresses “the abstraction of trading capabilities,” solving whether “trading can be system-called.”

Previously, in an article titled “Web3 is entering the rule-generation phase” published by Go2Mars PRI, it was mentioned that the next stage of Web3 is not about explosive growth, but about entry points; not about traffic, but about institutional frameworks.

From this, we understand the fundamental reason behind HyperLiquid and Aster’s popularity. Can we then use this logic to revisit 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” are almost nonexistent so far.

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.

Here’s an explanation of these three points:

1. Unclear legal responsibilities: Who is the issuer? Who guarantees authenticity? Who is responsible for defaults? These are all ambiguous.
2. 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.
3. Unnatural liquidity: No market makers, no continuous quotes, more like “private placement shares.”

Based on Go2Mars PRI’s research and historical review, we believe that “true RWA exchanges” must have: on-chain liquidation rights > off-chain ownership, defaults that can be automated, and RWA itself as a “cash flow instrument,” not just an “asset proof.” Here are explanations for these three core logics:

1. On-chain liquidation rights > off-chain ownership: It’s not about “I own this asset,” but about: “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.
2. Defaults are automatable: Default enforcement is not 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.
3. RWA as “cash flow instruments,” not “asset proofs”: RWA traded are not houses, bonds, etc., but “cash flow priority rights.” These are agreements on who gets paid first, how much, and who bears what risks. The core is: recombination of risk and return. Cash flow priority rights are the key focus of RWA.

Are there products that are close to the correct form? Yes, but they are still in semi-finished stages. They often do not call themselves exchanges, do not emphasize RWA, but are already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk layering, and 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: “Responsibility, liquidation, and default system on-chain.” Can defaults, enforcement, and cash flow prioritization 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, it’s clear they aren’t just “building better exchanges,” but are accomplishing something deeper—turning exchange systems into on-chain rules.

HyperLiquid addresses: will the platform change rules? Aster addresses: can trading be system-called? The real challenge for RWA exchanges is even more complex: can defaults, responsibilities, and cash flow prioritization be fully managed by code? If not, RWA will remain just “asset display layers.” If yes, RWA will evolve into “systemic finance.”

Over the past two years, the market’s focus has been on “asset on-chain”—real estate, bonds, notes, fund shares, 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 are the default trigger conditions? 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 packaging.

The real RWA exchange might not look like what we’re used to. It may not emphasize “decentralization,” or focus on “asset variety,” or even be called an “exchange.” But it must have three core 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 just “private placement on chain,” but a market of tradable cash flow structures. The trading object shifts from “a specific project” to “a certain risk structure.” It’s not about “buying assets,” but “buying a cash flow priority right.”

If Web3 is entering a “rules generation phase,” then RWA’s mission is to: transform the most core, hidden, and human-dependent 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 “trustworthiness of rules.” Just like HyperLiquid attracted professional traders’ migration, future RWA markets will attract: capital unwilling to bear systemic risk, institutions seeking transparent risk structures, and AI/agents/quant systems needing programmable cash flows. When cash flows can be algorithmically understood, defaults can be automatically executed, and liquidation can be pre-priced, that will be the real explosion point for RWA.

Therefore, 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 sector, but a foundational layer of systemic finance. That will be the true upgrade and evolution.