The most confusing aspect of RWA on-chain is that it 'looks very stable': the underlying assets are real-world cash flows with very little price fluctuation. But the real conflict is that exits from RWA are often not instantaneous. USDD 2.0 has a PSM 1:1 swap for anchoring, and the main question is: when market sentiment suddenly changes and everyone wants to 'exchange for certainty', can the depth of the USDD PSM pool withstand the queued redemptions?
The logic of PSM is very rigid: turning 'anchoring' from a story into an arbitrage window. When prices deviate, arbitrageurs pull USDD back to around $1 through a 1:1 swap. Its strengths are transparency, executability, and verifiability. However, the new contradictions brought by RWA are liquidity mismatches: real asset returns may be stable, but their redemption and settlement usually take time; while on-chain runs occur instantly, the speed of emotion far exceeds the speed of assets.
This will push stablecoins to a harsher evaluation standard: not 'is the asset worth it', but 'can it be exchanged now?'. The over-collateralization of USDD 2.0 provides a buffer for long-term repayment, but short-term price stability relies more on the PSM outlet. If the outlet narrows at a critical moment, the secondary market will first experience price discount diffusion, which will in turn drive more people to rush toward the outlet, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.
So when viewing USDD in the RWA narrative, you cannot just look at 'does the yield resemble that of government bonds', you have to consider 'does the window resemble a bank counter'. The biggest risk at the counter is not bad debts, but queueing during a bank run. If USDD's PSM is to carry the stablecoin demand in the RWA era, the pool depth must not only be thick enough but also sustainable: because the more stable the yield from RWA, the more it will attract larger volumes of funds to treat USDD as a docking point; the larger the volume, the more terrifying the instantaneous demand during a bank run.
Three sentences on risk lines:
The risk is that - the PSM pool depth is quickly consumed during periods of stress, which will first trigger a discount and then lead to a larger withdrawal.
This stems from the 'low volatility expectations' brought by RWA, which will amplify the gathering of funds. Once the sentiment shifts, demand will explode instantaneously.
I only focus on one indicator - whether the PSM available depth shows a sustained decline and slows down in recovery during periods of stress.
USDD 2.0 aims to create a decentralized dollar base, and the most expensive aspect of the base is not the yield, but the ability to 'exit anytime'. Do you think that in the RWA era, USDD should prioritize thickening the PSM pool depth or improving the overall collateral buffer?