Tokenisation is widening access to real-world assets, from Treasury-linked products and gold to more specialised credit, commodity and cash-flow structures. As the RWA category expands, however, the token itself is only the starting point. Investors still need to understand the underlying asset, legal claim, return mechanism and liquidity terms before treating any tokenised product as comparable.
The first wave of real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation was built around assets that were fairly straightforward to represent on-chain.
US Treasuries and gold were natural early candidates, mainly because both are highly liquid, globally standardised and already supported by mature custody, valuation and trading infrastructure. They were also already highly familiar to most investors, with underlying exposure that was relatively easy-to-grasp.
In both cases, tokenisation did not require investors to rethink the asset itself. Instead, it offered a new and more efficient way to access, hold or transfer something they already understood.
As tokenisation moves beyond familiar markets into more complex assets that have historically been harder to access, the emphasis shifts to whether an asset should be tokenised and why. That will mean being more selective about where tokenisation genuinely adds value, while helping investors look beyond the token wrapper to understand the underlying exposure, structure and risks.
Why Access Matters
The promise of tokenisation was never solely about faster, more efficient markets. Improvements such as 24/7 trading, faster settlement and automation matter, but they are all part of a bigger shift in how investors access assets in the first place.
Access has traditionally been constrained less by the asset itself than by its surrounding structure. High minimum investment sizes, institutional gatekeeping and jurisdiction-specific onboarding can all limit participation, even before custody, settlement, reporting or transfer restrictions are considered. In many cases, the limiting factor is the route in rather than the level of investor demand.
Tokenisation changes that route. A security can be issued digitally, split into smaller units and made available through regulated digital securities infrastructure, creating new ways for eligible investors to hold or transfer exposure.
Tokenised Treasuries show how far this model has come. In the past few years, products such as BlackRock’s BUIDL and Franklin Templeton’s BENJI have helped make Treasury-linked tokens one of the most visible RWA categories, worth an estimated $15 billion according to RWA.xyz. Arguably their most important contribution has been to show that exposure to one of the most familiar assets in finance can now be issued and administered on-chain at real scale.
Even so, scale does not settle the access question. BUIDL, for example, has a $5 million minimum and is open only to qualified purchasers. USTBL, listed on Bitfinex Securities, takes a different route, offering Treasury-linked exposure through the iShares $ Treasury Bond 0–1yr UCITS ETF, with a $1 minimum investment and $1 minimum tradeable unit. Primary creation and redemption run in USDt, while secondary trading happens on the Liquid Network, a Bitcoin sidechain. That structure is especially relevant in markets where investors may hold dollar-linked stablecoins but have limited access to US Treasury-linked products through conventional channels.
Treasuries are the easy case. If investors still need to look closely at the structure behind a token linked to short-term government debt, that need only grows as tokenisation moves into assets where the claim, return mechanics and exit path are far less obvious.
The Long Tail of Tokenisation
The next phase of RWA tokenisation is already underway.
Gold and Treasuries remain important because they are easy to understand and comparatively simple to value. The broader opportunity lies in markets where access has traditionally been harder, from private credit and infrastructure financing to commodities, receivables, specialist debt and other cash-flow-based assets.
That expansion is where tokenisation becomes more interesting, but also more demanding. A token linked to short-term government debt is relatively easy to explain. A token linked to a private credit portfolio, a commodity claim or subordinated debt requires more work from both issuers and investors.
The wider market already reflects this spread. Tether Gold (XAUt), one of the largest gold-backed tokens by market value, shows how physical gold can be represented on-chain at meaningful scale. Elsewhere, specific products such as Maple’s Blue Chip Secured lending pools and Centrifuge’s recently launched tokenised high-yield corporate bond strategy with New York Life Investment Management show the same logic applied to institutional private credit. ALT2612, listed on Bitfinex Securities, is a more specialised structure again — a 36-month tokenised bond issued by Mikro Kapital, denominated in USDt and linked to microfinance and small-business lending in emerging markets.
All of these are RWAs, but they are not the same investment. Each uses tokenisation as an access layer, yet each rests on a different issuer, legal structure, underlying asset, return mechanism and liquidity profile.
Calling them all RWAs may be useful market shorthand, but it says very little about what an investor actually owns.
The Token Standardises Access, Not the Investment
As tokenised RWAs become more varied, the label itself becomes less useful unless investors look at what sits behind it.
Most RWAs are linked to assets, cash flows or legal structures that remain outside the blockchain. The token may record or represent a legal or economic claim connected to that underlying exposure, but investors still need to understand the structure behind it.
TITAN1, also listed on Bitfinex Securities, is a useful example. Holders do not own the underlying credit union debt directly. Instead, they hold equity in a Guernsey protected cell company, which in turn invests in subordinated debt issued by a UK credit union. The key point is that the token, the legal structure and the underlying asset are not the same thing.
This approach shows why the token itself is only the starting point and the same is true across the category. A debt claim, a fund interest, commodity exposure, a receivable, subordinated credit or a right to future proceeds can all sit under the RWA umbrella. Before treating any of them as comparable, however, investors need to ask the same basic questions: what is the underlying asset? What legal or economic claim does the token represent? How are returns generated? How is liquidity, transfer or exit structured? Who was the product designed for?
These are the same questions investors already ask of securities in traditional markets, but they matter more as tokenisation pushes into less familiar assets and structures.
Quality of Access Means More Than Availability
The next phase of tokenised RWAs should be judged on the quality of access it delivers, rather than on how many assets can be brought on-chain.
That starts with selectivity. Issuers and platforms need to focus on assets where tokenisation genuinely improves distribution, transferability, transparency, settlement or usability and not simply the assets that happen to be possible to represent as tokens.
It also requires informed access. Investors should be able to see what sits behind the token, what claim they hold, how returns are generated and what liquidity or exit options are realistic before they allocate capital. For physical assets, that means credible custody and verification. For receivables or credit, it means reporting and default processes. For products linked to future proceeds, it means clear contractual waterfalls and risk disclosure.
Finally, it requires investor due diligence. Clearer information can make an asset easier to reach and understand, but it does not replace judgment. Investors still need to assess the asset, issuer, structure, return profile and liquidity assumptions for themselves.
The token is the access layer, but the underlying asset remains the investment case. As tokenised RWAs expand into more specialist assets and cash flows, the next test is whether access becomes clearer and more meaningful for investors — rather than simply whether more assets can be represented on-chain.
