What kind of assets are worth on-chain? The answer points to a neglected trillion-dollar market

‍#RWA This narrative has been overdone.
Real estate on-chain, art on-chain, wine on-chain, carbon credits on-chain...
Sounds sexy, but think calmly—most of these are pseudo-questions.
Why?
Because they miss one key point:
On-chain itself does not create value; it only changes the form of asset existence.
Blockchain is a tool, not magic.
A bottle of Bordeaux wine, turned into #NFT ,
won't become Maotai because of it.
The real question isn't “Can it be on-chain,”
but—
What problem does on-chain actually solve?
One, the only criterion: Where does the liquidity barrier come from?
If an asset in the traditional system:
Flows smoothly
Has low participation barriers
Has manageable intermediary costs
Then putting it on-chain is likely just a technical show-off.
Assets truly worth on-chain must meet one condition:
Current liquidity barriers mainly stem from
intermediary costs + trust costs,
not the physical or economic attributes of the asset itself.
Stocks are a typical example.
T+2 clearing, cross-border settlement friction, broker custody costs—
These issues are not stock problems,
but originate from financial infrastructure designed in the paper certificate era.
So, stock on-chain is a When question, not a Yes or No.
Nasdaq’s application for stock tokenization and extended trading hours are essentially following this direction.
But even so—
Stocks are still not the best target.
Because for ordinary investors,
buying US stocks is no longer difficult.
Two, the “locked” market is private equity
There is a market, huge in scale, that has long been closed to the vast majority:
Private Equity.
Its barriers are not “risk awareness,”
but institutional exclusivity:
Minimum investment of $200,000–$500,000
Qualified investor certification
5–8 year lock-up period
Almost no effective secondary market
Severe information asymmetry
What’s the result?
👉 90% of investors are directly shut out.
But the key point is:
Almost all these barriers are artificially designed institutional costs.
A private equity investment,
and a share of Apple stock,
are fundamentally no different legally.
The difference lies in:
The technical architecture and intermediary system of traditional finance.
And this, precisely, is where blockchain excels at solving problems.
Three, not all private equity is worth on-chain
It must be clarified:
The words “private equity” do not carry inherent value.
A restaurant chain in a third- or fourth-tier city,
even if tokenized,
won’t magically generate liquidity.
The truly worth-on-chain assets are a small handful of top-tier tech private equity assets.
Especially leading Silicon Valley companies.
1️⃣ Solid fundamentals, deep moats
SpaceX: controls about 90% of global payloads to orbit
Starlink: over 5 million users, annual revenue exceeding $10 billion
Stripe: supports global internet payment infrastructure
xAI, Anthropic: core players in AI computing power and model arms race
Their business certainty,
is no less, even stronger than many listed companies.
2️⃣ Even more crucial: shifting the value creation cycle forward
This is a structural change many overlook.
In the past, a company might take only a few years from founding to IPO.
Now?
2010–2016: median IPO age ~8 years
Post-2017: 9–10 years, continuously lengthening
SpaceX: founded in 2002,
Even if it goes public in 2026, it will have been 24 years.
What does this mean?
👉 More than half of the value growth occurs before IPO.
Retail investors are increasingly getting only the “last mile.”
And this trend is long-term, structural,
not cyclical fluctuations.
Four, the true value proposition of private equity tokenization
Therefore, the core significance of on-chain private equity is not “hype new concepts,”
but:
To release the most lucrative part of value discovery,
from a few to many.
But the premise is:
What you buy must be genuine equity economic rights,
not some price-pegged derivatives.
Five, Jarsy: a relatively pragmatic solution
I previously discussed with Jarsy’s Co-Founder.
Under current regulatory and technological conditions,
their approach is relatively restrained and more realistic.
The core structure is clear:
User buys tokens →
Platform acquires real private equity through compliant channels →
Equity is held in an independent SPV →
Tokens 1:1 map to economic rights
Several key points to note:
1:1 backing by real assets: not synthetic assets
Bankruptcy isolation: SPV is separated from platform operations
Very low threshold: starting at $10, supports USDC / fiat
Web2 friendly: participation without wallet knowledge
Limited but real secondary liquidity: at least no longer “completely locked”
The assets listed are also relatively restrained:
SpaceX, xAI, Anthropic, Stripe, Ripple, Databricks…
No long tail junk,
focused on AI, aerospace, fintech, prediction markets—sectors with genuine long-term logic.
Conclusion
Twenty years ago, ordinary people couldn’t participate in Facebook’s Series A.
Ten years ago, SpaceX was out of reach for retail investors.
Now, at least one entry point has emerged—
Participate with a few hundred dollars in the journey before IPO.
This may be the most meaningful form of RWA:
Not issuing air coins,
Not stacking concepts,
But genuinely breaking down a wall.
The true value of blockchain,
has never been “creating assets,”
but redistributing participation rights.