I used to think lending against real-world assets would always be difficult because many of them simply aren’t liquid enough.
After looking more closely at @TermMax , one thing caught my attention: the physical delivery mechanism.
If an asset becomes difficult to sell, the solution doesn’t always have to be “sell it on the market.” In some situations, the asset can be delivered directly to the lender.
That made me think differently about RWA lending.
Tokenizing an asset doesn’t automatically make the underlying asset liquid. What really matters is what happens when a loan reaches maturity or when things don’t go as planned.
That’s also where fixed-rate lending becomes interesting. With a clear rate and defined maturity, both sides can understand the terms from the beginning.
I’m still cautious about the RWA narrative, but I’m genuinely interested in seeing how @TermMax handles physical delivery with less-liquid real-world assets.
That’s where the real test begins.