In recent years, what I feel most strongly about RWA is encapsulated in one sentence: what truly determines life and death is never who first includes 'U.S. Treasury bonds, stocks, gold' in the white paper, but who can still provide a set of proof chains that institutions and regulators cannot raise major issues with one year, three years, or even ten years later. It is precisely for this reason that when I saw APRO clearly incorporate Proof of Reserve (PoR) along with price oracles and AI Oracles into the 'three existing major products,' I knew it was not treating PoR as a marketing attachment, but rather as the main engine driving the RWA business.

If we break down PoR, it is essentially a reporting system 'that uses the chain to prove that off-chain assets are really there'. APRO's definition of PoR in the documentation is very straightforward: this is a blockchain-based reporting system used for transparent, real-time verification of the reserves supporting tokenized assets, with the goal of achieving 'institutional-level security and compliance'. To accomplish this, APRO's RWA Oracle does not focus on just one data source, but integrates exchange PoR (such as reserve disclosures from Binance, Coinbase), staking data from multiple chains, traditional financial institutions (banks, custodians), and even regulatory documents (SEC reports, audit documents), and then utilizes AI for document parsing, multilingual standardization, anomaly detection, and risk assessment. In other words, it attempts to consolidate fragments scattered across PDFs, web pages, and audit reports into a machine-readable and human-auditable reserve proof.

More importantly, APRO has not made PoR a one-time 'snapshot proof', but has designed the PoR-Report as the core product of the entire RWA Oracle: the PoR-Report is generated by a layer of nodes and undergoes final review by a second layer of nodes, clearly stating 'what facts have been published, based on what evidence, using what methods, and who endorses it', and requires that every field can be traced back to specific bytes or pixel locations in the original evidence. This means that PoR is no longer just 'I tell you there is money', but rather 'I give you a fact receipt that can be re-run, audited, and recalculated'. In the RWA white paper, APRO even directly summarizes the RWA roadmap as upgrading from 'Mapping (mapping real assets)' to 'Continuous Proving (continuous proof)', where PoR is no longer a static snapshot but needs to cover dynamic dimensions such as cash flow and cross-chain collateral consistency. This precisely hits on several points that institutions and protocols fear the most: unclear maturity mismatches, unclear whether collateral is being re-pledged, and unclear whether positions on different chains are mappings of the same pool of assets.

This is also the rule change I want to emphasize: **The RWA narrative is shifting from 'who issues tokens' to 'who can continuously prove'**. Early RWA projects tended to spend time on 'we obtained certain assets, linked to certain yields'; now, more and more professional readers are no longer satisfied with hearing stories but are focused on three things: can you regularly and standardize produce PoR reports; can you provide automatic alerts when the reserve ratio falls below 100%, assets are misappropriated, or compliance status is abnormal; can you allow third parties to verify this proof chain without relying on your goodwill. APRO's PoR module details 'intelligent data collection, automated reporting, real-time monitoring and alerts, dedicated PoR interfaces' in the documentation, which actually sends a signal to RWA protocols and custodians: this is not just helping you create a PoR page, but helping you turn 'can it be continuously proven' into a programmable underlying capability.

For RWA projects themselves, this will directly change their preferences for infrastructure. Previously, doing RWA only required finding a familiar public chain, a reliable custodian, and adding an audit report to tell the story; but after the FTX incident, various exchange turmoil, and an increasing number of projects that 'claim RWA but cannot clarify underlying assets', the market's demands for PoR have obviously increased. Now, as you move towards larger-scale scenarios – whether it’s US Treasury funds, tokenized stock baskets, or commodity notes – you must answer the following questions: does your asset proof have a standardized PoR interface? Can it be directly integrated and automatically read and written into risk control by DeFi protocols? Are there on-chain hashes, historical versions, and alert records that can be externally audited? An oracle like APRO that treats PoR as an independent product line and is clearly marked as 'existing core product' by Binance Research will naturally take the lead on these issues.

The impact on users is actually more direct than many might imagine. For protocol parties or asset issuers, a mature PoR Oracle means you can outsource a lot of 'compliance and trust communication' work to a professional data layer: APRO is responsible for helping you integrate multi-source data, parse audit documents, generate PoR-Reports, and continuously monitor and trigger alerts on key indicators such as reserve ratios, non-compliance changes, and asset ownership changes; what you do is turn these reports into on-chain parameters, part of front-end disclosures and risk control rules. For DeFi protocols, what you get is not just a statement that 'this RWA claims to be safe', but a PoR feed that can be directly written into contract logic – for example, an LTV curve automatically adjusts based on the PoR confidence score, triggering limits or suspension mechanisms when the reserve ratio falls below a certain line. For ordinary users, the more standardized PoR is, the more opportunities you have to quickly judge whether an RWA project is reliable using one or two indicators, without needing to sift through thick PDFs.

Azu believes that Day 11 is better concluded with an 'exercise' rather than a slogan. You can pick one RWA track you are most familiar with today: US Treasuries, stocks, or commodities, and choose one at random, then write yourself a 'PoR demand checklist'. If it's US Treasuries, what do you want PoR to prove? Custodian account balances? Corresponding ISIN/CUSIP for holdings? Duration distribution? Whether it has been pledged or re-pledged? If it's stocks, what would you want to see? Brokerage/custodian link, frequency of position reconciliation, how corporate actions (dividends, stock splits) are synchronized? If it's commodities, you might care about how warehouse receipts, logistics, insurance, and quality inspection reports align. After writing, compare it with APRO's PoR capabilities: what data sources can it access, what documents can AI help you turn into structured fields, and what key facts can PoR-Report help you solidify on-chain. Once you have clarified this checklist, you will no longer be a passive listener accepting 'the new RWA story', but have your own 'PoR selection framework' to judge more calmly whether APRO or other infrastructures are more suitable for undertaking the next wave of assets on-chain.

\u003cm-7/\u003e \u003cc-9/\u003e \u003ct-11/\u003e