The alternative asset market exceeds $13 trillion, yet its on-chain adoption faces fundamental barriers.
Ambiguous Rights Chain: Unclear mapping between on-chain tokens and off-chain legal entitlements
Valuation Black Box: NAV relies on infrequent external audits, causing severe information asymmetry
Exit Friction: Quarterly/annual redemption windows conflict with DeFi's 24/7 trading expectations
Pure compliance approach
Securitize
Extremely poor liquidity; secondary market exists in name only
Pure DeFi approach
Early RWA pools
Lacks real asset backing, unsustainable returns
Hybrid approach
Most Projects
Neither here nor there—neither compliant nor liquid
Paimon does not pursue the goal of enabling all assets to "exit instantly like ETH"—the nature of alternative assets makes this objective unfeasible.
Liquidity is a budget, not a right: Instant exit is a limited resource that must be rationally allocated through cost mechanisms
Weakly Coupled Pricing: The intrinsic value (NAV) of PPs and market price (P_mkt) are permitted to diverge, converging under controlled rules
Transparency over promises: Publicly disclose all liquidity budgets and queue statuses, allowing the market to price risk premiums autonomously
The key insight is that alternative assets cannot and should not promise instant liquidity. Instead, Paimon creates a transparent, rules-based system where:
Users understand the liquidity constraints upfront
The cost of liquidity reflects its true scarcity
Market participants can price risk appropriately
The system remains stable under redemption pressure
Last updated
Traditional Approach:
Asset → Token → "Instant Liquidity" (Promise)
↓
Failure when stressed
Paimon Approach:
Asset → Token → Tiered Liquidity (Budget-based)
↓
Sustainable under stress