By 2026, the RWA market size will approach $20 billion, with institutional funds accounting for nearly 70%. But a stark reality remains—the "one-size-fits-all" architecture of traditional public blockchains is holding back progress.



Where is the problem? Consensus, applications, and privacy features are forcibly bundled together, leading to deployment cycles for institutional-grade applications extending to several months, high development costs, and difficulty in adapting to personalized needs across different financial scenarios. Low efficiency, high costs, and poor flexibility are the three mountains weighing down the entire industry.

Is there a way to break the deadlock? Let's look at a new modular architecture approach.

The core innovation is "split collaboration"—dividing consensus settlement, EVM applications, and privacy services into three independent modules, each with its own responsibilities but capable of seamless cooperation. This "Lego-style" combination scheme completely rewrites the efficiency standards of financial blockchains.

The most impressive is the consensus settlement module. It adopts a zero-knowledge proof consensus mechanism, bypassing the performance bottlenecks of traditional PoW/PoS, and completes transaction finality within 15 seconds—much faster than the industry average. This perfectly meets the core requirement of "instant clearing" in financial transactions. More importantly, it ensures network security and decentralization through Byzantine protocols, allowing institutional assets to be on-chain while enjoying the convenience of on-chain trading and security comparable to traditional finance.

The EVM application module achieves seamless compatibility with the Ethereum ecosystem, reducing migration costs for developers. The privacy module independently handles sensitive data encryption, ensuring that business secrets are not leaked. These three modules are natively interconnected via non-custodial bridges, enabling users and institutions to assemble them as needed, flexibly responding to different scenarios.

What does this design bring? Deployment cycles are compressed from several months to weeks, development costs are significantly reduced, and the highest standards of security and privacy are maintained. For the large-scale implementation of RWA, this is not just a technological upgrade but a fundamental breakthrough in overcoming the bottlenecks that restrict industry explosion.
ETH4,49%
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
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
LostBetweenChainsvip
· 5h ago
Blind standard proof + Byzantine? Sounds like just another PPT plan, but how does it perform in practice? The modular approach is indeed well-designed, but can a 15-second settlement really be stable, or is it just an ideal scenario? RWA surpassing 70% institutional share is a good thing, but what traditional finance people fear most is regulation. No matter how fast the chain is, it can't escape this hurdle. The deployment cycle has been reduced from months to weeks. How much has the cost decreased? Without specific data, it's hard to judge. The idea of modular splitting is good, but I'm worried it will lead to each part fighting alone. Can the three modules truly work seamlessly together, or will it become a new compatibility nightmare? Regarding EVM compatibility, with so many projects in the Ethereum ecosystem, will they really migrate over? It still depends on the incentive strength.
View OriginalReply0
GasWastervip
· 12h ago
The modular architecture sounds good, but I'm worried it's just empty promises. However, the 15-second settlement is indeed impressive; traditional finance can't match that.
View OriginalReply0
MetaMaskVictimvip
· 12h ago
Modular architecture is indeed a concept, but can we really trust the 15-second settlement? Where does this data come from? For RWA to truly take off, the key is whether institutions are willing to pay, not just relying on technical papers. There are many solutions claiming seamless compatibility with Ethereum, but in the end, everyone is still doing their own thing.
View OriginalReply0
DeFiDoctorvip
· 12h ago
The consultation records show that the clinical performance of this modular solution is indeed impressive, but I need to review it regularly—15-second settlement sounds great, but what about the actual liquidity indicators? Are there many projects currently using the blind benchmark consensus mechanism? Could it be another old story where the paper looks good but implementation fails... It's recommended to check the code vulnerabilities before praising. RWA relies on this broken breakthrough? I still want to see the day when the symptoms of capital outflow truly disappear.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerWalletvip
· 12h ago
Sounds good, but can 15-second settlement really hold up? Has the Byzantine protocol been tested in financial scenarios? --- Modularization feels like old wine in a new bottle; let's see when it officially launches. --- Do institutions dare to trust this privacy solution? I have my doubts. --- Lego-style splitting sounds great, but is it truly seamless when integrated? Skeptical. --- From months down to weeks, where does this data come from... I haven't seen the source code. --- With a market size of 20 billion, can these new architectures really find a foothold? --- Blind signature proof? Never heard of it; isn't this just another set of concepts? --- EVM compatibility is okay, but has a security audit been conducted? --- The real bottleneck for RWA implementation is institutional regulation, not the tech stack. --- How does a trustless bridge ensure atomicity? What about the details?
View OriginalReply0
  • 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)