Author: Chain Outside Old Wang

In the world of blockchain, those theoretically impeccable, logically coherent, and directionally "correct" paths often struggle, as if wearing invisible shackles. These "correct" notions have not only failed to become a smooth road to success but have instead turned into heavy shackles, locking countless ambitious explorers in place.

This is not a failure of logic, but rather the harsh friction of ideals when they touch the rough reality. Every correct direction corresponds to a heavy chain.

1. RWA: The Shackles Bound by "Real World Compliance"

Bringing real-world assets (RWA) on-chain is undoubtedly one of the industry's most "correct" narratives. It promises to transform tangible assets such as equity, debt, real estate, and even infrastructure revenue into on-chain tokens, thereby embracing regulation and empowering the real economy. This sounds like a broad avenue for blockchain to bid farewell to speculation and return to value. The case of Ant Group tokenizing charging pile revenue rights once illuminated the prospect of significantly improved financing efficiency.

However, this vision of "real value" constitutes the first set of shackles. Real-world assets inherently carry the complexity of the real world. The ambiguity of legal rights is one chain: does a property certificate circulating on-chain hold the same validity as a property deed in court? The high uncertainty of regulation is another chain: when assets circulate across countries, which country's financial regulations should be followed? Coupled with a series of issues such as a lack of liquidity in the secondary market, complex valuation models, and fragile off-chain asset management, RWA projects have always struggled to break free from the confines of "pilot" and "concept."

These visions of "real value" must endure the cold test of "compliance." You cannot simply tokenize Nvidia's stock and trade it on a decentralized exchange (DEX)—that is illegal. A compliant RWA project must follow a complex and highly centralized process:

1. Licensed issuer: The issuer must be a regulated financial institution, not an anonymous team.
2. 1:1 asset custody: For every 10,000 tokens issued, 10,000 units of real assets must be deposited in a custody account and subjected to audit.
3. Trading on compliant exchanges: Tokenized securities can only be traded on exchanges holding specific licenses, not on user-friendly platforms like Binance or Coinbase.
4. Strict KYC/AML: Investors must undergo identity and anti-money laundering checks that are more stringent than those at conventional exchanges.

Pursuing "reality," yet firmly locked by the complexity of "reality." This "correct" path ultimately leads to a contradictory product: a "decentralized" asset that heavily relies on centralized institutions. As a result, the vast majority of RWA projects remain stuck in the pilot stage reported by the media, ultimately becoming stars in research reports but leaving little mark on real financial statements.

2. Security and Compliance: The Shackles Isolated by "Trust"

In the blockchain realm filled with hacking attacks and regulatory scrutiny, security and compliance are undoubtedly "absolute necessities." From smart contract audits to on-chain anti-money laundering (AML), each niche corresponds to markets worth millions or even billions. Many technical teams have indeed created world-class products: code scanners that can generate vulnerability lists in minutes, and analytical tools that can accurately track the flow of illicit funds.

However, this "necessity" forms the second set of shackles because it faces a market that is almost impenetrable. When financial institutions procure security tools, technological advancement often ranks last; they first look for endorsements and trust. This creates an invisible barrier: Has your company received recommendations from regulatory bodies? Have you established partnerships with the Big Four auditing firms or large IT service providers? Do you have successful cases of serving state-owned banks?

For a startup, the answers to these questions are almost all negative. Thus, we witness the most absurd scene: a top team that repeatedly wins various security competitions struggles in business development, ultimately surviving by writing research reports and conducting training sessions. This "most correct" necessity is locked out by the "relationship barriers" of traditional finance, becoming synonymous with "seemingly the most reliable, yet the most despairing to pursue."

3. Industrial Applications: Must We Wear This Shackle Named "Upgrade"?

Using blockchain for carbon trading, cross-border e-commerce traceability, or medical data sharing is equally flawless in logic—leveraging the characteristics of "decentralization" and "immutability" to solve trust issues, thereby reducing costs and increasing efficiency. This is an immensely grand and correct industrial story.

However, the most fundamental principle of the business world: cost-effectiveness, forms the third set of shackles. When a cross-border e-commerce business owner is asked whether they would like to adopt blockchain traceability, their primary concern is: "This is great, but why should I pay more for a 'more trustworthy' label? Traditional databases can achieve this, and they are much cheaper." Similarly, a carbon asset platform built on government subsidies quickly becomes deserted once the subsidies stop. The grand blueprint for medical data sharing is also stalled because hospitals are unwilling to open core data.

When blockchain cannot prove itself as the "irreplaceable" and "more cost-effective" sole solution, the promise of "reducing costs and increasing efficiency" becomes an empty statement. Ultimately, the grand applications that should empower trillion-dollar industries have devolved into a "futuristic" showcase project in government exhibition halls.

4. Digital Identity and Judicial Evidence: The Shackles Enslaved by "Grand Visions"

From digital identity, data rights confirmation to judicial evidence and government transparency, these directions undoubtedly represent future trends and possess undeniable social value. They promise a more transparent, trustworthy, and efficient digital society.

However, this "grand social value" is precisely the fourth set of shackles, as it often contradicts market-oriented business logic. Digital identity requires the collaboration of the entire ecosystem, including government, industry leaders, and regulatory bodies, which is not something a startup can drive. Some teams spent two years exploring "educational information on-chain," only to be met with the response from schools: "A database is sufficient; there’s no need for blockchain." Judicial evidence can be implemented, but more often as a one-time project to earn meager service fees, lacking growth potential.

These directions resemble a kind of public infrastructure—everyone acknowledges its importance, yet no one is willing to continuously pay for it. When the "correctness" of a direction relies on government subsidies or pilot projects for sustenance, it loses a leg. This grand vision, due to its lack of an independent business loop, is locked in policy documents and industry conference PPTs.

5. Decentralized Governance (DAO): The Shackles Bound by "Human Nature"

DAO represents the "correct" future of community ownership and decentralized decision-making. Once a project is launched and moves towards decentralization, the team no longer holds 100% control, necessitating a mechanism for joint decision-making with the community. However, this ideal, most aligned with the spirit of Web3, is shackled by the heavy weight of "human nature." The OpenGov model is theoretically flawless: binding community interests with those of whales (large holders) to incentivize them to vote for the long-term development of the ecosystem.

Yet the reality is that treasury funds are used to pay a few KOLs and for absurd projects like painting logos on private jets, while genuinely valuable developer proposals are frequently rejected. The theoretically perfect incentive mechanism succumbs to real cultural divides, the formation of interest groups, and the shortsightedness of decision-makers. The most "correct" governance model is ultimately shackled by the oldest weaknesses of human nature.

Breaking the Shackles, Where Do We Go from Here?

Looking back at these paths, we find that failure is not due to incorrect directions, but because each "correct" direction is connected to a heavy shackle of the real world.

But this is not the end. Just like the Chinese internet twenty years ago, which was once deemed a bubble and went through countless "correct" yet failed attempts, it ultimately emerged with super applications like e-commerce, payments, and social networking. Blockchain may also have to undergo a similarly long cycle.

True breakthroughs may not lie in envisioning the next grand and correct narrative, but in finding a small fulcrum that can leverage the shackles. What we look forward to are teams that can genuinely reduce costs by 1% in cross-border payments using blockchain, solutions that address trust issues for SMEs in supply chain finance, and companies that provide an irreplaceable tool in data compliance.

These paths seem incredibly difficult now, but as long as someone can be the first to break free from a shackle, it will not only be a victory for one project but also lighten a heavy burden for the future of the entire industry.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。