Recently, I’ve noticed a pretty interesting yield product logic—it doesn’t require you to directly hold stablecoins, yet you can still earn USD-denominated returns.



The core mechanism of these products is integrating institutional-grade RWA (Real World Assets), but at the product level, they eliminate currency risk and issuer risk. You don’t have to worry about a stablecoin suddenly depegging, nor do you need to monitor the issuer’s reserve reports—the risk management is built directly into the product design.

Looking at historical data, this structure has performed quite well. Compared to simply parking stablecoins for interest or directly buying US Treasury exposure, its yield curve tends to be more stable. Of course, this is because institutional RWA itself has a relatively optimized risk-reward ratio, plus the product implements multiple layers of risk isolation.

In short: want USD returns but don’t want to take on the systemic risk of stablecoins? These products offer an alternative. But every investment has trade-offs—the key is to consider which type of risk you’re more sensitive to.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 9
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
blockBoyvip
· 2025-12-12 23:36
Sounds like the same old risk management approach again, hearing too much about RWA.
View OriginalReply0
ShibaOnTheRunvip
· 2025-12-12 04:28
This approach sounds good, but can the risk isolation really hold... RWA sounds sexy, but in reality, it's just an extra middleman Everyone says historical data looks good, but when will problems arise? Stablecoin de-pegging vs RWA default, either way it's a gamble on luck
View OriginalReply0
ForkItAllvip
· 2025-12-10 10:27
It sounds like just a different way to sell stablecoin yields, but with a new name called RWA.
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamervip
· 2025-12-10 01:27
Sounds good, but can RWA really be trusted?
View OriginalReply0
TerraNeverForgetvip
· 2025-12-10 01:23
Alright, yet another "zero-risk return" story. Yeah, right, like I’d fall for that.
View OriginalReply0
MoneyBurnervip
· 2025-12-10 01:22
It sounds like all the risks have been "preempted," but I just want to ask: who can guarantee that these multiple layers of isolation actually work? RWA sounds sophisticated, but in the end, you still have to trust some intermediary. I’ve opened a position, but don’t tell me this is less risky than just holding stablecoins directly—it's just old wine in a new bottle.
View OriginalReply0
NftRegretMachinevip
· 2025-12-10 01:20
Isn't this just making the risks more hidden? The historical data may look good, but when a black swan event occurs, no one can escape.
View OriginalReply0
ForkLibertarianvip
· 2025-12-10 01:10
Sounds good, but who can guarantee that there won't be any unexpected issues with RWA? --- It's another case of multi-layered risk isolation; sounds nice, but in reality, it's still a bet on the issuer being reliable. --- Wait, in the end, this product still relies on trusting a certain institution, right? I just want to know if it can truly eliminate all risks. --- It's a bit convoluted, feels like just another way to reduce leverage. --- The returns are stable because no one is touching it; if it becomes popular, the risks will come too.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHermitvip
· 2025-12-10 00:57
Sounds like they're just putting a shell on it to throw the risk elsewhere, but can they really get rid of it completely? RWA sounds high-end, but who can guarantee those "institutional assets" won't have issues too? I think there's still some hype in this logic, but it's definitely more reliable than aping into stablecoins directly. By the way, what's the current yield on this kind of product? If it's too outrageous, I'll be the first to bail. It still depends on who's running things behind the scenes. A nice name doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Multi-layered risk isolation? Sounds fancy, but when things blow up, it's all landmines, haha. This logic is just about substitutes, but what if the substitutes end up betraying you too? I've seen stablecoins depeg, I've seen RWA collapses too—there's really no perfect solution.
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)