The core issue isn't unique to RWAs: the gap between on-chain records and real-world legal enforcement exists across crypto. Holding >51% of AAVE tokens doesn't mean you can replace Stani, ACI, or Token Logic, right? "Tokens are just IOUs, not ownership." Essentially, incentives can live on-chain, but enforcement can't. The difference? Traditional crypto assets hide this with the "code is law" illusion and low-stakes transactions that aren't worth litigating. RWAs, dealing with real assets and big value, force us to confront it head-on—exposing a fundamental problem all crypto faces: when stakes are high, "code is law" crumbles. Bonds have covenants, stocks have control rights—what do tokens have? Whether tokenized RWAs or any token-issuing project, true value comes from enforceable change of control (CoC) over issuers. Tokens derive value not from "advisory rights" or mere claims, but from legally backed "control rights" or beneficial ownership that ties to cash flows. CeDeFi has similar pitfalls: Mint your BTC into xxBTC, and the project might quant it in a Ceffu address before cold storage. You hold a 1:1 redemption right, but the beneficial owner is the project—not you. This murky legal framework for "beneficial ownership" plagues crypto everywhere, not just RWAs. It doesn't halt progress (we're all iterating with compromises), but discussing it openly is invaluable.RWA isn't just about tokenizing assets—it's about bridging on-chain incentives with real-world enforcement. At @CIAN_protocol, we're tackling this by building structured liquidity infrastructure for tokenized RWAs like private credit, ensuring enforceable controls through on-chain mechanisms like CCR clearing and tranching protections. This transforms assets into composable DeFi elements—segmenting into senior (stable yields), junior (leveraged positions), and yield tranches for diverse risk profiles—making institutional yields sustainable and accessible on-chain. What's your biggest RWA concern? #RWA #DeFi