Last time we talked about Real World Assets (RWA), we explored three different approaches to bringing off-chain assets onto the blockchain. One of the rising stars at the time was Mantra, a Layer 1 blockchain based on the Cosmos SDK and designed specifically to support the growing RWA narrative.
Fast forward to last week — despite announcing promising partnerships and development milestones, $OM, the native token of Mantra, dropped as much as 90% in a matter of days. What went wrong? And more importantly, what does it tell us about the current state — and future — of RWA in crypto?
What Went Wrong with Mantra?
Mantra entered the spotlight with all the right ingredients: a slick narrative around real-world assets, low float/high FDV tokenomics, and apparent traction in the Middle East. But like many new Layer 1s, it faced the challenge of maintaining momentum ahead of large token unlocks — a period that often brings volatility and uncertainty.
It appears that efforts to support the token’s price — whether through coordinated market activity or organic trading — may have fallen short. With thin liquidity and a small circulating supply, once confidence wavered, the market had no cushion. The price collapsed, and there was little natural demand to absorb the sell pressure.
Investors largely overlooked that Mantra was essentially a fork of Cosmos with some custom RWA-focused modules. Many chased the narrative, ignoring fundamentals and better-positioned competitors. The result was a hard reset for both the project and its supporters.
Do We Really Need a Layer 1 for RWA?
Here’s the question more people should have asked earlier: Do RWAs need their own blockchain at all? Most users would rather have their tokenized assets — whether it’s real estate or T-bills — on Ethereum or a major L2, not on a niche chain that might not survive the next market cycle.
Why?
- Security: Ethereum has the most battle-tested smart contracts and validator network.
- Ecosystem support: Integrations with wallets, exchanges, and DeFi protocols already exist.
- Longevity: Institutional players want to know their assets will outlive a startup chain.
Launching a custom L1 adds technical debt, fragmentation, and regulatory risk — without necessarily adding user value. Unless there’s a truly novel consensus or compliance mechanism, building on Ethereum (or even leveraging modular frameworks like Celestia or Rollups) is a smarter path.
Tokenomics & Transparency: Lessons Learned
One of the biggest takeaways from Mantra is the importance of token design and transparency. Many crypto projects continue to launch with:
- Low circulating supply
- High insider allocations
- Poorly communicated unlocks
- Artificial price support via market makers
These setups are unsustainable. They create the illusion of value — until tokens unlock or sentiment shifts. Then, they unravel fast. Going forward, both builders and investors need to demand clear unlock schedules, publicly auditable wallets, and honest disclosures about how much supply is under team or investor control.
What Real Innovation in RWA Looks Like
The real challenges in RWA aren’t about spinning up a new chain — they’re about solving the messy real-world problems like:
- Regulatory compliance (KYC/AML)
- Reliable asset custody and legal wrappers
- On-chain identity and registries
- Permissioned smart contracts for institutional access
The projects that succeed in this space will be the ones building compliant, composable infrastructure — not just hype-driven chains. Expect more focus on oracles, metadata standards, and identity layers rather than yet another Layer 1.
Will RWA Really Generate Revenue?
Let’s do some simple math on whether RWAs are actually profitable — and for whom.
💰 Hypothetical Revenue Breakdown:
- $1B in tokenized assets
- 0.5% origination fee → $5M one-time
- 0.25% annual management fee → $2.5M/year
- $100M traded monthly at 0.05% protocol fee → $600K/year
That’s around $8.1M in Year 1 revenue — from just $1B in assets.
Scale that to $10B, and now you’re looking at a legitimate eight-figure revenue stream.
🤔 But Here’s the Catch:
- Most RWA protocols don’t own the custody or origination.
- If you’re just a blockchain, how much of this fee flow do you actually capture?
- You need users, developers, and legal infrastructure — not just tokenomics.
Real revenue in RWA exists — but only if you own key parts of the stack.
Who’s Building the Next Phase of RWA?
Here are some of the most promising players leading the way — along with the tech they’re using and the risks they face.
📌 Pinlink
- What It Does: Asset identity registry — think ENS for real-world things.
- Tech: Built on Ethereum. Uses IPFS and NFTs to link physical assets to legal metadata.
- Risks: Still early. Legal enforceability of claims may be untested in court. Competing projects may enter.
💵 Ondo Finance
- What It Does: Tokenized securities, starting with U.S. Treasuries (OUSG).
- Tech: Ethereum-based. Leverages real custodians (e.g., BlackRock) and whitelisted smart contracts.
- Risks: Highly dependent on U.S. regulatory clarity. Centralized custody is a risk.
After some quiet months, Ondo is gaining attention again thanks to its institutional-grade tokenized T-bills (OUSG) and expansion into APAC markets. With Coinbase and BlackRock nods, they’re positioning as a credible bridge for TradFi.
⚙️ Chex
- What It Does: Tokenizing commodities and logistics assets (e.g. oil, metals, grain).
- Tech: Multi-chain — using Ethereum and Polygon, with Chainlink for data oracles and RFID integration.
- Risks: Logistics infrastructure is messy. Data integrity is critical. Institutional adoption may lag.
🏗️ Centrifuge
- What It Does: RWA lending with real-world collateral (e.g. invoices, real estate).
- Tech: Built as a Polkadot parachain with Ethereum bridging. Uses NFT-based asset tokenization.
- Risks: Less visibility outside Polkadot. Loan performance depends on off-chain enforcement.
🪙 Maple Finance
- What It Does: On-chain undercollateralized lending for institutions, now expanding into RWA credit lines.
- Tech: Ethereum and Solana-based. Uses smart contracts and pool delegates for underwriting.
- Risks: Credit risk. Some past defaults. Regulatory friction with unsecured lending.
🧭 Where Do We Go From Here?
The Mantra saga should be a turning point. The RWA narrative is real — it’s not just hype — but it needs infrastructure, not speculation. What comes next?
- Shift from L1s to middleware and application layers
- Focus on compliant infrastructure, not forks
- RWA liquidity pools, registries, and oracles > empty chains
- Real revenue, not token inflation
Mantra may have fallen, but the future of RWA is still very much alive — and maybe this reset is exactly what the space needed.