I once thought RWA was fairly simple: tokenize a real-world asset, put ownership on the blockchain, and then everything would become more transparent and easier to trade. But when I looked into TermMax and the concept of physical delivery, I realized the bigger issue is what comes behind the token. Tokenization does not equal liquidity. ETH or stablecoins can be traded almost instantly, but a real asset—once tokenized still—retains the limitations of the underlying asset. If the borrower can’t repay the loan, the key question is: how will the lender handle the collateral? Physical delivery points to a more practical approach: in certain structures, the asset can be transferred directly to the lender rather than being required to be sold on the secondary market. That also changed how I view fixed-rate lending. Lenders don’t just care about interest rates or maturity; they also need to understand what rights they truly have over the collateral if the loan runs into trouble. So I started looking at TermMax not just as a lending protocol, but as a test of credit markets for RWA assets on blockchain. Blockchain can solve ownership, settlement, and transfer. But it doesn’t magically create liquidity. And in my view, this is one of the most important problems RWA must solve if it wants to scale for real. #termmax @TermMax $BTW $GRVT $DOS