I've been reading a lot about Real World Assets lately. The space is loud—everyone talks about billions in TVL, protocols competing for institutional yields, tokenized treasuries, and fractional ownership of everything from land to invoices. The numbers are impressive, sure. But stepping back from all that noise, I need to ask myself: what does this actually mean?
-- At its core, RWA is about bringing tangible things—land, commodities, invoices, buildings—onto blockchain rails. It's about making these assets more accessible, more liquid, easier to trade and own in fractions. This resonates with something I've always believed: technology should remove barriers, not create new ones.
When we started building KOOMPI, it was because we believed students should have access to computers for learning. Not everyone could afford one, so we focused on making that access real through mini-PCs and Linux-based labs. The principle was simple: make the essential accessible.
RWA feels similar. Not everyone can afford to buy an entire building or a large plot of land. But maybe they could own a piece of it. Maybe a farmer in Cambodia could tokenize their crops and get capital without going through layers of middlemen. Maybe a small business could get invoice financing in hours instead of weeks, at a fraction of the usual cost.
That's the promise that makes sense to me.
--
But there's a difference between "financialization" and "utility."
I've seen too many projects—including in blockchain—that chase trends without serving real needs. They optimize for speculation, for hype cycles, for getting on the next investor's radar. The problem is, when you peel back the layers, there's not much underneath. No one is actually using it. No real problem is being solved.
With RWA, the risk is the same. It's easy to get caught up in the mechanics—the yields, the protocols, the technical architecture. The numbers look amazing on paper. But if we're just moving traditional finance inefficiencies onto a blockchain without fundamentally improving access or reducing costs for real people, what's the point?
I need to remember this: technology is a tool. The question is always, "who does this serve?" If RWA is just another way for institutions to make more money off complex financial instruments, that's fine—but it's not particularly interesting to me. If RWA can help a farmer get a fair price, or a student invest in their education, or a small business access capital without being crushed by fees—now we're talking.
--
I've been thinking about Selendra, the blockchain infrastructure we've been working on. Could it power RWA and fractional ownership in Cambodia? Could it enable secure transfers and exchanges of real assets—land titles, agricultural products, invoices—on local terms, with local regulations in mind?
Maybe. I think there's real potential there. But I also know it might not be us who solves it. It could be another team, another project, someone with more resources or a better approach. What matters is that someone figures this out, because the need is real.
Cambodia has thousands of schools. We're at 63 computer labs now, but there are thousands more to go. Farmers need better access to markets and capital. Small businesses need faster, cheaper financing. If blockchain and RWA can genuinely help with these problems—not just in theory, but in practice—then we should pursue it.
But only if it's real. Only if it serves people, not just protocols.
Note to Self
When you revisit this in a few months or years, remember:
Don't chase trends. Build things that matter. The billions in TVL and institutional yields are interesting data points, but they're not the goal. The goal is accessibility, fairness, and real utility.
Stay grounded. Before diving into any RWA project, ask: who needs this? How does it improve their life? What barriers does it remove? If you can't answer those questions clearly, it's probably not worth doing.
Be patient. Real change takes time. It took years to get from a Facebook group meetup to an actual ecosystem. It'll take time for RWA to move from speculation to serving real needs. That's okay. Be willing to wait, to experiment, to fail, and to learn.
Remember where you come from. You started with bicycles and coffee shop meetings because you didn't have the money for anything else. You built computer labs because students needed access. You focused on Linux because it made economic and educational sense. The principle hasn't changed: work with what you have, serve real needs, and let the rest follow.
The RWA space will keep evolving. The numbers will keep climbing. The protocols will keep launching. But underneath all that, there's a simple question: does this make the world a little more fair, a little more accessible?
If yes, keep building. If no, move on.
That's what I need to remember.