Tokenised RWAs: Access Is Just the Beginning

Tokenisation initially focused on familiar assets like US Treasuries and gold due to their liquidity and standardised infrastructure, offering more efficient access rather than altering the assets themselves. As the category grows, the emphasis shifts to whether tokenisation adds value for more complex assets such as private credit or commodities, where investors must evaluate underlying exposure, legal structures and risks beyond the token wrapper. The broader promise of tokenisation lies in addressing access barriers like high minimum investments, institutional gatekeeping and jurisdiction-specific onboarding, enabling eligible investors to hold or transfer exposure through regulated digital securities infrastructure. Products like BlackRock’s BUIDL and Franklin Templeton’s BENJI demonstrate scale in Treasury-linked tokens, valued at $15 billion, while USTBL on Bitfinex Securities offers Treasury exposure via an ETF with a $1 minimum, highlighting differing access models within tokenised RWAs.

Tokenised RWAs now extend to gold, private credit and specialised debt, each requiring deeper investor scrutiny due to varied issuer structures, return mechanisms and liquidity profiles. Examples include Tether Gold (XAUt) for physical gold, Maple’s Blue Chip Secured lending pools for institutional private credit, and ALT2612, a tokenised bond linked to microfinance in emerging markets, all representing RWAs but not identical investments. The label ‘RWA’ becomes less informative as tokenisation diversifies, as tokens may represent legal or economic claims tied to underlying assets outside the blockchain, necessitating investor understanding of the full structure. TITAN1, for instance, involves equity in a Guernsey protected cell company investing in UK credit union debt, illustrating that the token, legal structure and underlying asset are distinct entities requiring separate evaluation.

The next phase of tokenised RWAs should prioritise quality of access over sheer volume, focusing on assets where tokenisation enhances distribution, transferability, transparency, settlement or usability rather than merely enabling on-chain representation. As tokenisation moves into less familiar assets like receivables, specialist debt or cash-flow structures, investors must ask fundamental questions: what is the underlying asset, what claim does the token represent, how are returns generated, and how is liquidity or exit structured? These questions mirror traditional market scrutiny but become critical as tokenisation ventures into more opaque and complex structures. Selectivity from issuers and platforms will determine whether tokenised RWAs deliver meaningful improvements in market accessibility and efficiency. The shift underscores that tokenisation’s value lies not in the token itself but in the underlying infrastructure and design choices that enable broader, more transparent access to previously restricted assets.

Tokenisation’s broader impact hinges on addressing access constraints that have historically limited participation in certain asset classes, such as high minimum investments or institutional gatekeeping, rather than solely improving trading efficiency. By enabling digital issuance, fractionalisation and regulated digital securities infrastructure, tokenisation creates new pathways for eligible investors to engage with assets like Treasuries, gold or private credit, even in markets with limited conventional access. However, the effectiveness of these pathways depends on clear disclosure of the legal and economic claims represented by tokens, as well as the liquidity and exit mechanisms available to investors. As the category matures, the focus must remain on delivering tangible benefits in access and transparency, ensuring that tokenised RWAs serve as a bridge to broader financial inclusion rather than a fragmented extension of existing markets.