After the launch of the consumer credit vault from public chain project Pharos this year, pre-deposits reached the $50 million cap within 48 hours. At the official launch, there was already approximately $35 million in committed deposits.
More notably, Pharos is not an isolated case. Over the past few years, several projects have emerged on-chain attempting to bring credit assets like consumer loans, inclusive credit, and mortgage loans onto the blockchain. Their target is not a newly created asset class, but a traditional market that has long existed yet remains underutilized on-chain—the global consumer credit market.
A Trillion-Dollar Cake, No One is Cutting It
Consumer credit is not a niche asset: According to Euromonitor data, the global consumer credit scale exceeded $21 trillion in 2025 and is expected to reach $25.5 trillion by 2030. Compared to this scale, on-chain consumer credit remains a very early-stage market. There are not many teams that have truly developed standardized on-chain consumer loan products and achieved significant scale.
This precisely explains why a consumer loan vault of tens of millions of dollars from Pharos is noteworthy: what it truly unlocks is not a new DeFi lending pool, but a source of assets with massive traditional finance volume yet still low on-chain penetration.
Previously, the easiest RWAs to bring on-chain were standardized assets like U.S. Treasuries and money market funds, due to their low credit risk, transparent valuation, and mature legal structures. Consumer loans are completely different: individual loans are small, borrowers are dispersed, terms vary, and underlying credit risks are more complex.
Therefore, the real difficulty in bringing consumer loans on-chain has never been "how to turn loans into on-chain products," but rather how to repackage thousands of off-chain loans into standardized credit products that on-chain capital is willing to buy.
The Change on-Chain is in Fund Distribution
Compared to traditional consumer loan ABS (Asset-Backed Securities), on-chain products have indeed changed part of the fund flow.
First, the settlement path has changed. Investors can use stablecoins to participate in subscriptions and redemptions; funds no longer rely entirely on traditional cross-border wire transfers, custody, and settlement systems. For globalized capital, this can reduce some account system and cross-border settlement frictions.
Second, the presentation of asset information has changed. On-chain shares, transaction records, and some asset data can be continuously updated via smart contracts and product interfaces. Investors have shorter paths to obtain information and find it easier to perform programmatic verification.
Third, the settlement method for shares has changed. Standards like ERC-7540 for asynchronous vaults are designed specifically for real-world assets and private credit that cannot be settled instantly: investors first submit subscription or redemption requests, and the vault distributes shares or assets after processing is complete. It solves the mismatch between on-chain share settlement cycles and the underlying asset settlement cycles.
These differences address fund distribution and operational efficiency issues, not credit risk issues—the inherent default risk of the underlying loans remains unchanged. But for consumer finance institutions, the value lies exactly here: they don't need to reinvent a lending system; they gain an additional channel to access global digital asset capital.
Several Paths Are Converging
Although the assets and models of the currently emerged projects differ, their general logic is similar: consumer loan interest rates in emerging markets are high (commonly 11%-30%), traditional funding channels are limited; on-chain capital also wants to move away from the increasingly thin yields of Treasury-class RWAs. The two sides align.
-
Pharos: Connects small consumer loans from Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Using the on-chain vault infrastructure R25 + risk curator Axil, it creates 92-day term on-chain products targeting a 13% annualized return, with an on-chain scale of about $35 million. The product uses USDC as the settlement asset, aiming to provide global on-chain capital with exposure to consumer credit previously mainly underwritten by local financial institutions and private credit funds.
-
Huma Finance × Tala: On the Solana public chain, it turns cross-border payment financing and emerging market consumer credit into "PayFi." Tala plans to deploy a $50 million USDC stablecoin credit line to serve its global inclusive finance customers.
-
Figure: The U.S. licensed consumer credit company Figure has originated over $21 billion in home equity loans through its self-built public chain Provenance; Figure's latest securitization transaction also received AAA ratings from S&P and Moody's. Figure positions itself as capital markets infrastructure connecting loan origination, funding, and secondary market trading, rather than simply moving loans on-chain. This is the most important distinction between Figure and the previous projects: it's not just putting assets on-chain, but attempting to connect asset origination, capital markets, securitization, and distribution.
-
Goldfinch: Was a pioneer protocol for unsecured loans in emerging markets, with cumulative lending exceeding $100 million. However, due to borrower fund misappropriation and repayment issues, cumulative bad debt reached about $18 million, and the community voted to wind down in June this year.
Breaking it down, the underlying assets are in emerging markets or subprime credit populations; the on-chain component handles the capital entry point and share recording. Among these projects, only one is truly doing the professional packaging according to traditional finance rules.
Goldfinch's experience shows that on-chain transparency cannot replace off-chain credit capabilities. What truly determines whether a consumer loan product can operate long-term still includes borrower screening, risk pricing, post-lending monitoring, legal recourse, and default handling.
So, on the surface, these projects are all "moving consumer loans on-chain"; upon closer look, they are actually trying to fill in different parts of the puzzle.
And what is truly scarce is precisely the middle layer.
What's Really Missing?
Breaking down this value chain reveals four layers:
First layer, underlying assets. Consumer finance institutions are responsible for finding borrowers, disbursing loans, and managing post-lending activities.
Second layer, credit and structuring. Someone needs to screen and combine numerous loans based on term, credit grade, region, and risk, then design structures like funds, SPVs, tranches, credit enhancement, and coordinate ratings, legal documentation, and subsequent distribution.
Third layer, on-chain infrastructure. Vaults, on-chain shares, NAV, subscription/redemption mechanisms, custody, and on-chain records bring the already structured assets on-chain.
Fourth layer, capital side. Stablecoin funds, crypto asset management institutions, family offices, and other digital asset investors provide capital for these products.
The third layer is currently the most visible.
But what truly determines whether a consumer loan RWA can grow from tens of millions of dollars to a larger scale is often the second layer.
In traditional finance, this layer belongs to the securitization and underwriting system. When consumer finance institutions issue ABS, they need someone to design the transaction structure, arrange tranching and credit enhancement, coordinate rating agencies, law firms, custodians, and institutional investors. This system has been operating for decades.
In contrast, many on-chain consumer loan projects involve Web3 teams taking on a significant portion of this work themselves: screening assets, designing vaults, performing risk curation, determining yield structures, and then selling the products directly to on-chain capital.
The problem is, while this model can scale quickly, it may not be sufficient to support institutional-scale operations.
R25 and Axil, behind Pharos, essentially undertake part of the asset screening, risk curation, product structure design, and capital raising work found in traditional securitization transactions. However, compared to mature ABS markets, publicly available materials still lack sufficiently comprehensive country-specific, batch-specific asset performance data, as well as independent ratings, standardized credit enhancement mechanisms, and complete default resolution frameworks.
This is not to say on-chain products are inherently unsafe, but rather: on-chain solutions have addressed "how assets flow," but have not fully resolved "why assets are worth buying."
This is precisely the significance of Figure.
It doesn't bypass traditional finance; it brings the crucial language of credit from traditional finance onto the chain. Figure has already received AAA ratings from S&P and Moody's; its latest securitization transaction is described by Figure as the first in the blockchain finance field to receive this dual AAA recognition.
In other words, what Figure proves is not that "blockchain can do loans." What it truly proves is: when on-chain assets possess standardized loan data, securitization structures, ratings, and institutional-grade capital markets infrastructure simultaneously, traditional finance capital can also understand and allocate these assets in familiar ways.
Goldfinch illustrates the same problem from the opposite side: without mature credit screening, continuous management, and recovery systems, no matter how efficient the on-chain capital entry point is, it cannot replace credit capability.
What's the Value of Being Early?
Looking at the problem inversely: if the real gap in this value chain is structuring and distribution capability, then the institutions that fill this gap first are not just getting a single deal.
First, the market is still early enough.
As mentioned earlier, global consumer credit is already a mature asset market exceeding $20 trillion, but truly standardized, institutional-grade products entering the on-chain capital market are still very few. This means the market hasn't yet formed mature product standards, pricing systems, and service chains. Early entrants still have the opportunity to establish their position.
Second, this is about finding new money for existing assets.
What consumer finance institutions truly lack is usually not lending capability, but a continuous, stable, and cost-controllable source of funds. On-chain stablecoin capital pools offer a source of digital asset capital that is harder for traditional bond markets to reach.
If this channel truly works, consumer finance institutions don't need to abandon their existing bank, ABS, and institutional funding; they simply add a new capital pool alongside their original financing structures.
Third, what's missing is precisely mature capital markets capability.
The common shortcomings in current on-chain consumer loans—insufficient asset disclosure and independent audits, unestablished rating and credit enhancement mechanisms, lack of unified market standards for legal entitlement and default resolution—correspond exactly to the most mature aspects of traditional capital markets.
Asset securitization, structured finance, credit analysis, rating coordination, and institutional distribution—these capabilities have been developed over many years in traditional ABS markets. What on-chain consumer loans truly lack is not reinventing these, but adapting these mature capabilities to a new funding channel.
Figure has already proven that on-chain assets are not incompatible with the rating and securitization systems of traditional finance. As stablecoin capital and RWA markets continue to expand, the value of this layer of capability will only become more evident.
Who Will Sit at the Table First?
The real competition in bringing consumer loans on-chain may never be "who launches an RWA vault first."
Pharos has proven that on-chain capital is willing to provide tens of millions of dollars for emerging market consumer credit; Tala and Huma Finance have proven that stablecoins can enter consumer finance systems serving the globally underbanked; Figure further proves that when on-chain assets possess mature capital market structures and rating systems, they can also fit into frameworks familiar to traditional institutions.
These paths all point to the same question: Who can turn dispersed consumer loans into a standardized, priceable, rateable, distributable on-chain credit asset?
Consumer finance institutions hold the assets and risk control; Web3 teams provide on-chain infrastructure; and the structuring, credit analysis, rating, and distribution capabilities accumulated over years by traditional capital markets can precisely fill the most critical missing link between the two.
Compared to highly standardized assets like Treasuries and money market funds, the difficulty with consumer loans isn't just moving assets on-chain, but reorganizing the dispersed underlying loans into standardized products that institutional investors can understand, price, and allocate *before* they go on-chain.
This is also the most noteworthy area of incremental growth for consumer loan RWAs currently: on-chain infrastructure is gradually maturing, but there remains significant room for professional capital markets capabilities that connect the asset side with institutional capital.
*The content of this article is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice. Markets involve risks; investment requires caution.
