RWA total market value exceeds 58 billion, stablecoin market value exceeds 320 billion: How tokenized assets are reshaping on-chain finance

Tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) is not a single market but a complex ecosystem composed of multiple segments with different functions and logics. Stablecoins, tokenized gold, and broad RWA (such as US Treasury tokenization, private credit tokenization, etc.) form the core structure of this track, but each plays a distinctly different role.

Stablecoins are the largest and most liquid underlying infrastructure within the RWA ecosystem. As of April 20, 2026, the total global stablecoin supply has reached approximately $320.7 billion, with USDT dominating at about $185.46 billion, followed by USDC at around $78.86 billion. Essentially, stablecoins are a on-chain mapping of fiat currencies, with their value anchored to USD and other legal tender, serving as the “pricing unit” and “settlement medium” for the entire crypto market.

Tokenized gold represents a typical pathway for “physical assets on-chain” within the RWA track. As of February 2026, the assets under management (AUM) for tokenized gold reached about $3.5 billion, with Tether Gold (XAUT) holding a market cap of over $3.5 billion, accounting for more than half of this segment. Broad RWA (excluding stablecoins) covers a wider range of asset classes, and by mid-April 2026, its total market cap had reached a record approximately $58 billion.

The three segments are not isolated. Stablecoins provide liquidity for trading and settlement of tokenized gold and broad RWA, while tokenized gold and broad RWA introduce traditional financial returns and asset backing into the on-chain economy, forming a “bottom-layer liquidity + top-layer real assets” dual-structure.

Why did the stablecoin market size surpass $320 billion in 2026?

The continuous expansion of the stablecoin market is driven by multiple structural forces. By mid-April 2026, the total global stablecoin market cap reached about $326 billion, with a slight week-over-week increase of 0.48%. From a macro perspective, stablecoin supply has recovered and approached a new historical high.

On the demand side, stablecoins are no longer limited to trading scenarios. Their core user base has expanded to three levels: retail users leveraging stablecoins to access USD exposure in regions lacking banking services; DeFi traders using stablecoins as collateral for leveraged trading; and institutions and enterprises utilizing stablecoins for on-chain USD liquidity and yield management. This diversification of demand significantly enhances stablecoin “stickiness.”

On the supply side, the business models of stablecoin issuers are undergoing profound changes. Take Tether as an example: about 83% of its reserves are held in US Treasuries, generating ongoing returns. According to its profit distribution mechanism, Tether allocates up to 15% of quarterly net profits to buy Bitcoin, creating a self-reinforcing cycle: “USDT supply increases → reserve income grows → profits convert into Bitcoin → Bitcoin reserves in the balance sheet expand → market confidence strengthens → further USDT demand.” By April 2026, Tether held over 97,000 BTC, with an average cost basis of around $51,000, and unrealized gains exceeding $2.1 billion.

Additionally, the pace of regulatory compliance is accelerating. In April 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority officially granted the first stablecoin licenses to HSBC and Standard Chartered-led entities, marking a significant step forward in stablecoin regulation in major Asian financial centers.

What are the structural drivers behind the $3.5 billion AUM of tokenized gold?

The $3.5 billion AUM for tokenized gold in 2026 is not merely a price rally but results from institutional entry, technological maturity, and macro-hedging needs.

From a market size perspective, the tokenized gold segment continues to grow rapidly. By February 2026, its total market cap surpassed $6 billion, an increase of over $2 billion since the start of the year, with more than 1.2 million ounces of physical gold used as backing for digital gold tokens. XAUT dominates with a $3.5 billion market cap, followed by Paxos’ PAXG at about $2.3 billion.

Institutionally, tokenized gold is moving from “early exploration” to “mainstream allocation.” On April 17, 2026, Hong Kong-licensed digital asset exchange OSL HK officially launched gold RWA tokens Matrixdock Gold (XAUm) and silver tokens Matrixdock Silver (XAGm), supporting major trading pairs with USD, USDT, and USDC. The underlying physical assets of XAUm and XAGm adhere strictly to LBMA delivery standards, with silver assets stored as LBMA Good Delivery standard bars, avoiding valuation discounts caused by detachment from certified custody systems. OSL becomes Hong Kong’s first compliant digital asset platform to list both gold and silver tokens.

Meanwhile, Japanese traditional trading companies are accelerating their deployment. On April 17, 2026, Mitsui & Co. announced that it would bring its Zipangcoin (ZPG), a tokenized precious metal asset, onto the Optimism mainnet, marking its first migration from a private blockchain since 2022. ZPG covers gold, silver, and platinum, and has been operating under Japanese regulation since 2022. Subsequently, GMO Coin, a Japanese exchange, listed ZPG on April 20, providing local investors with direct fiat trading channels.

From a macro perspective, after gold prices hit a record high of $5,602 per ounce in January 2026, they retreated somewhat, but long-term geopolitical risks continue to drive safe-haven capital into tokenized precious metals. Tether added 27 tons of gold to its fund portfolio in Q4 2025 and made a strategic $150 million investment in the precious metals platform Gold.com, acquiring about 12% equity, further strengthening institutional backing for tokenized gold.

What does the $58 billion total market cap of RWA reflect about asset structure evolution?

As of mid-April 2026, the total market cap of RWA reached approximately $663k, with tokenized assets on Ethereum growing about 200% year-over-year to roughly $19.3 billion. This figure includes on-chain distributed value (excluding stablecoins), but if off-chain supported assets are included, the overall scale is even larger.

In terms of asset class distribution, the RWA market is becoming increasingly diversified. By the end of 2025, private credit tokenization led with about $28.7 billion, followed by US Treasury tokenization at approximately $8.86 billion, commodity tokenization (mainly gold) at about $663k, institutional fund tokenization at around $2.98 billion, and government bond tokenization at roughly $320B. US Treasuries and commodities are the core growth drivers, with combined tokenization of over $16 billion, accounting for about 58% of overall growth.

Meanwhile, market concentration has decreased significantly. The share of the top assets has dropped by about 61%, with US Treasury RWA’s market share falling from 59% to around 43%, indicating a move toward diversification. On the user side, the number of RWA asset holders exceeds 663k, a 4% increase year-over-year.

It’s important to note that the “$58 billion” figure may vary depending on the statistical scope. If only on-chain distributed assets are counted (excluding off-chain backing), data from February 2026 shows about $24.9 billion, nearly quadrupling compared to the previous year. The discrepancy reflects the current state of the RWA track: many assets are tokenized on-chain but still backed by traditional custody off-chain.

How does this growth differ fundamentally from the on-chain boom of 2021?

Comparing this RWA expansion to the 2021 DeFi boom reveals fundamental differences in growth logic.

In 2021, on-chain growth was mainly driven by speculative demand. New capital inflows relied heavily on retail traders’ FOMO, with fragile liquidity structures prone to rapid contraction when market sentiment reversed. Stablecoins at that time were primarily used as trading media, lacking independent yield-generating capabilities.

In contrast, current RWA growth is characterized by “real yield support.” Stablecoin reserves are heavily allocated to US Treasuries and other income-generating assets, creating sustainable income streams. Tokenized gold and US Treasuries introduce risk-free or low-risk yields from traditional finance, supported by real economic activity rather than pure on-chain arbitrage. Bitfinex’s analysis indicates that the focus now is on infrastructure—on-chain assets can achieve real-time transfer, global auditability, and higher transparency compared to traditional settlement channels.

From a capital attribute perspective, participant profiles have also shifted significantly. Institutional funds have entered in larger scales; corporate treasuries and asset managers are incorporating on-chain assets into their portfolios. The number of RWA holders exceeds 663k, and stablecoin holders globally reach about 232 million, reflecting increasing on-chain USD usage in payments and financial activities.

Furthermore, the development of regulatory frameworks is a key differentiator. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s issuance of the first stablecoin licenses, the potential passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act in 2026, and Abu Dhabi’s ADX completing its first cross-chain tokenized oil certificate transfer—all these policy advances are clearing institutional barriers for large-scale RWA commercialization.

What regionalization patterns are revealed by the dual cases of OSL and Mitsui & Co.?

OSL’s listing of gold and silver tokens and Mitsui & Co.’s deployment of ZPG on the Optimism mainnet are not isolated market moves but reveal different regional pathways for RWA tokenization.

OSL exemplifies a “compliant exchange-led” model. The Hong Kong-licensed digital asset exchange OSL HK launched XAUm and XAGm, targeting professional investors in Hong Kong, with OTC trading. The core logic is: leveraging the licensed exchange’s regulatory backing, OTC channels provide safe, compliant precious metal tokenization products for professional investors. OSL becomes Hong Kong’s first compliant platform to list both gold and silver tokens, aiming to enhance the structure of on-chain bulk commodity assets and move from single assets toward “portfolio allocation.”

Mitsui’s approach represents a “traditional trading company-led” model. Since 2022, ZPG has operated under Japanese regulation on a private blockchain, and only in April 2026 was it migrated to the public chain Optimism. The key features are: traditional physical asset companies lead issuance and custody of tokenized assets, with the public chain serving primarily as a liquidity and accessibility infrastructure. Mitsui & Co. explicitly states that the goal of migrating to the public chain is “to improve global accessibility and liquidity,” leveraging the efficiency and scalability of public chains to “provide stability linked to gold while enjoying DeFi advantages.”

The comparison reveals an important trend: RWA tokenization is not a linear evolution of a single technology path but a multi-ecosystem shaped by regional financial infrastructure, regulation, and industry resources. Hong Kong relies on licensed exchanges to build compliant product supply, while Japan leverages its physical asset resources through traditional trading firms. The intersection point is that public chains are becoming the underlying infrastructure connecting different regional RWA ecosystems.

What are the key structural risks in the RWA market?

Despite the strong growth momentum of RWA in 2026, the market is not without structural risks. At its current stage, at least three logical concerns are worth noting.

First, the “idle” problem of tokenized assets. Many tokenized RWAs are still in a state of low yield or no yield, with a lack of effective DeFi integration pathways. If these assets cannot form healthy interactions with lending protocols, structured products, and other on-chain financial tools, their value capture ability will be limited. Addressing this issue depends heavily on the continued growth of stablecoin liquidity.

Second, the transparency of valuation and pricing presents challenges. Compared to traditional ETFs, tokenized assets may exhibit significant price gaps across different liquidity sources. Research indicates that at the “provider level,” price differences for the same trading path can widen to hundreds of basis points. This price divergence stems from liquidity fragmentation—assets across different blockchains and issuance platforms find it difficult to achieve seamless price discovery.

Third, regulatory uncertainty remains a major variable. Although Hong Kong has issued the first stablecoin licenses and the U.S. CLARITY Act may pass in 2026, global coordination on RWA regulation remains slow. Divergent standards on asset classification, custody requirements, and investor access across jurisdictions could hinder cross-border liquidity of RWA assets.

Summary

By mid-April 2026, the total market cap of RWA has reached about $58 billion. The tokenized scale on Ethereum has grown approximately 200% year-over-year to around $19.3 billion. This figure includes on-chain distributed value (excluding stablecoins), but the overall scale is larger if off-chain backing assets are included.

The asset structure is increasingly diversified. As of the end of 2025, private credit tokenization led with about $28.7 billion, followed by US Treasury tokenization at roughly $8.86 billion, commodity tokenization (mainly gold) at about $4.03 billion, institutional fund tokenization at around $2.98 billion, and government bonds at roughly $1.32 billion. US Treasuries and commodities are the core growth engines, with combined tokenization exceeding $16 billion, accounting for about 58% of total growth.

Market concentration has decreased significantly, with the share of top assets dropping by about 61%. US Treasury RWA’s market share fell from 59% to around 43%, indicating a move toward diversification. The number of RWA asset holders exceeds 663,000, up about 4% year-over-year.

It’s worth noting that the “$58 billion” figure may vary depending on the scope of statistics. If only on-chain distributed assets are counted (excluding off-chain backing), data from February 2026 shows about $24.9 billion, nearly quadrupling from the previous year. This discrepancy reflects the current state: many assets are tokenized on-chain but still backed by traditional custody off-chain.

How does this growth differ fundamentally from the 2021 on-chain boom?

Comparing this RWA growth to the 2021 DeFi frenzy reveals fundamental differences in growth logic.

In 2021, on-chain growth was mainly driven by speculative demand. New capital inflows relied heavily on retail traders’ FOMO, with fragile liquidity structures prone to rapid contraction when sentiment reversed. Stablecoins at that time were mainly used as trading media, lacking independent yield generation.

Today, RWA growth is supported by “real yield.” Stablecoin reserves are heavily allocated to US Treasuries and other income-generating assets, creating sustainable income streams. Tokenized gold and US Treasuries introduce risk-free or low-risk yields from traditional finance, backed by real economic activity rather than pure on-chain arbitrage. Bitfinex’s analysis emphasizes that infrastructure—on-chain assets can achieve real-time transfers, global audits, and higher transparency compared to traditional settlement channels.

From a capital perspective, participant profiles have shifted. Institutional investors have entered in larger scales; corporate treasuries and asset managers are incorporating on-chain assets into their portfolios. The number of RWA holders exceeds 663,000, and stablecoin holders globally reach about 232 million, reflecting increasing on-chain USD usage in payments and finance.

Additionally, regulatory frameworks are maturing, which is a key differentiator. Hong Kong’s issuance of stablecoin licenses, the potential passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act in 2026, and Abu Dhabi’s cross-chain tokenized oil certificate transfer are policy developments clearing institutional barriers for large-scale RWA adoption.

What regionalization patterns are revealed by the cases of OSL and Mitsui & Co.?

OSL’s listing of gold and silver tokens and Mitsui & Co.’s deployment of ZPG on the Optimism mainnet are not isolated market moves but reveal different regional pathways for RWA tokenization.

OSL exemplifies a “compliant exchange-led” model. The Hong Kong-licensed OSL HK launched XAUm and XAGm, targeting professional investors in Hong Kong, with OTC trading. The core logic: leveraging the licensed exchange’s regulatory backing, OTC channels provide safe, compliant precious metal tokenization products for professional investors. OSL is the first compliant platform in Hong Kong to list both gold and silver tokens, aiming to improve the structure of on-chain bulk commodities and move from single assets toward “portfolio diversification.”

Mitsui’s approach is a “traditional trading company-led” model. Since 2022, ZPG has operated under Japanese regulation on a private blockchain, only migrating to the public chain Optimism in April 2026. Its key features: traditional physical asset companies lead issuance and custody, with the public chain mainly providing liquidity and accessibility. Mitsui explicitly states that the goal of migrating to the public chain is “to improve global accessibility and liquidity,” using the efficiency and scalability of public chains to “provide gold-linked stability while enjoying DeFi benefits.”

This comparison reveals an important trend: RWA tokenization is not a linear evolution of a single technology but a multi-ecosystem shaped by regional financial infrastructure, regulation, and industry resources. Hong Kong relies on licensed exchanges for compliant product supply, while Japan leverages its physical asset resources through traditional trading firms. The intersection point is that public chains are becoming the underlying infrastructure connecting different regional RWA ecosystems.

What are the key structural risks in the RWA market?

Despite the strong growth in 2026, the RWA market faces certain structural risks. At this stage, at least three concerns are noteworthy.

First, the “idle” problem of tokenized assets. Many tokenized RWAs are still in a low or no-yield state, with a lack of effective DeFi integration. Without healthy interaction with lending protocols, structured products, and other on-chain financial tools, their value capture will be limited. Addressing this depends heavily on the continued growth of stablecoin liquidity.

Second, valuation and pricing transparency challenges. Compared to traditional ETFs, tokenized assets may exhibit significant price gaps across different liquidity sources. Research shows that at the “provider level,” price differences for the same trading path can widen to hundreds of basis points. This stems from liquidity fragmentation—assets across different blockchains and issuance platforms find it difficult to achieve seamless price discovery.

Third, regulatory uncertainty remains a major variable. Although Hong Kong has issued stablecoin licenses and the U.S. CLARITY Act may pass in 2026, global regulatory coordination remains slow. Divergent standards on asset classification, custody, and investor access could hinder cross-border liquidity of RWA assets.

Summary

By mid-April 2026, the total market cap of RWA reached about $58 billion. Ethereum-based tokenized assets grew approximately 200% YoY to around $19.3 billion. This includes on-chain distributed value (excluding stablecoins), but the overall scale is larger if off-chain backing assets are included.

The asset structure is becoming more diversified. By the end of 2025, private credit tokenization led with about $28.7 billion, followed by US Treasuries at roughly $8.86 billion, gold and commodities at about $4 billion, institutional funds at around $3 billion, and government bonds at roughly $1.3 billion. US Treasuries and commodities are the main growth drivers, with combined tokenization exceeding $16 billion, about 58% of total growth.

Market concentration has decreased significantly, with the share of top assets dropping by about 61%. US Treasury RWA’s market share fell from 59% to around 43%, indicating a move toward diversification. The number of RWA asset holders exceeds 663,000, up about 4% YoY.

Note that the “$58 billion” figure may vary depending on the scope of data collection. If only on-chain distributed assets are counted (excluding off-chain backing), February 2026 data shows about $24.9 billion, nearly quadrupling from the previous year. The discrepancy reflects the current state: many assets are tokenized on-chain but still backed by traditional off-chain custody.

How does this growth differ fundamentally from the 2021 on-chain boom?

Compared to the 2021 DeFi frenzy, the current RWA expansion is driven by fundamentally different logic.

In 2021, growth was mainly speculative, with fragile liquidity structures relying on retail traders’ FOMO, prone to rapid contraction when sentiment reversed. Stablecoins were mainly used as trading media, lacking independent yield.

Now, RWA growth is supported by “real yields.” Stablecoin reserves are heavily allocated to US Treasuries and other income assets, creating sustainable income streams. Tokenized gold and US Treasuries bring risk-free or low-risk yields from traditional finance, backed by real economic activity, not just on-chain arbitrage. Bitfinex’s analysis emphasizes that infrastructure—on-chain assets can enable real-time transfers, global audits, and higher transparency compared to traditional settlement channels.

From a capital perspective, participant profiles have shifted. Institutional investors have entered in larger scales; corporate treasuries and asset managers are incorporating on-chain assets. The number of RWA holders exceeds 663,000, and stablecoin holders globally are about 232 million, reflecting increased on-chain USD usage in payments and finance.

Furthermore, regulatory frameworks are maturing, which is a key difference. Hong Kong’s issuance of stablecoin licenses, the potential passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act in 2026, and Abu Dhabi’s cross-chain tokenized oil transfer are policy developments that are removing institutional barriers for large-scale RWA adoption.

What regionalization patterns are revealed by the cases of OSL and Mitsui & Co.?

OSL’s listing of gold and silver tokens and Mitsui & Co.’s deployment of ZPG on the Optimism mainnet are not isolated market moves but reveal different regional pathways for RWA tokenization.

OSL exemplifies a “compliant exchange-led” model. The Hong Kong-licensed OSL HK launched XAUm and XAGm, targeting professional investors in Hong Kong, with OTC trading. The core logic: leveraging the licensed exchange’s regulatory backing, OTC channels provide safe, compliant precious metal tokenization products for professional investors. OSL is the first compliant platform in Hong Kong to list both gold and silver tokens, aiming to enhance the structure of on-chain bulk commodities and move from single assets toward “portfolio diversification.”

Mitsui’s approach is a “traditional trading company-led” model. Since 2022, ZPG has operated under Japanese regulation on a private blockchain, only migrating to the public chain Optimism in April 2026. Its key features: traditional physical asset companies lead issuance and custody, with the public chain mainly providing liquidity and accessibility. Mitsui explicitly states that the goal of migrating to the public chain is “to improve global accessibility and liquidity,” leveraging the efficiency and scalability of public chains to “provide gold-linked stability while enjoying DeFi benefits.”

This comparison reveals an important trend: RWA tokenization is not a linear evolution of a single technology but a multi-ecosystem shaped by regional financial infrastructure, regulation, and industry resources. Hong Kong relies on licensed exchanges for compliant product supply, while Japan leverages its physical asset resources through traditional trading firms. The intersection point is that public chains are becoming the underlying infrastructure connecting different regional RWA ecosystems.

What are the key structural risks in the RWA market?

Despite the strong growth in 2026, the RWA market faces certain structural risks. At this stage, at least three concerns are noteworthy.

First, the “idle” problem of tokenized assets. Many tokenized RWAs are still in a low or no-yield state, with a lack of effective DeFi integration. Without healthy interaction with lending protocols, structured products, and other on-chain financial tools, their value capture will be limited. Addressing this depends heavily on the continued growth of stablecoin liquidity.

Second, valuation and pricing transparency challenges. Compared to traditional ETFs, tokenized assets may exhibit significant price gaps across different liquidity sources. Research shows that at the “provider level,” price differences for the same trading path can widen to hundreds of basis points. This stems from liquidity fragmentation—assets across different blockchains and issuance platforms find it difficult to achieve seamless price discovery.

Third, regulatory uncertainty remains a major variable. Although Hong Kong has issued stablecoin licenses and the U.S. CLARITY Act may pass in 2026, global regulatory coordination remains slow. Divergent standards on asset classification, custody, and investor access could hinder cross-border liquidity of RWA assets.

Summary

By mid-April 2026, the total market cap of RWA reached about $58 billion. Ethereum-based tokenized assets grew approximately 200% YoY to around $19.3 billion. This includes on-chain distributed value (excluding stablecoins), but the overall scale is larger if off-chain backing assets are included.

The asset structure is becoming more diversified. By the end of 2025, private credit tokenization led with about $28.7 billion, followed by US Treasuries at roughly $8.86 billion, gold and commodities at about $4 billion, institutional funds at around $3 billion, and government bonds at roughly $1.3 billion. US Treasuries and commodities are the main growth engines, with combined tokenization exceeding $16 billion, about 58% of total growth.

Market concentration has decreased significantly, with the share of top assets dropping by about 61%. US Treasury RWA’s market share fell from 59% to around 43%, indicating a move toward diversification. The number of RWA asset holders exceeds 663,000, up about 4% YoY.

Note that the “$58 billion” figure may vary depending on the scope of data collection. If only on-chain distributed assets are counted (excluding off-chain backing), February 2026 data shows about $24.9 billion, nearly quadrupling from the previous year. This discrepancy reflects the current state: many assets are tokenized on-chain but still backed by traditional off-chain custody.

How does this growth differ fundamentally from the 2021 on-chain boom?

Compared to the 2021 DeFi frenzy, the current RWA expansion is driven by fundamentally different logic.

In 2021, growth was mainly speculative, with fragile liquidity structures relying on retail traders’ FOMO, prone to rapid contraction when sentiment reversed. Stablecoins at that time were mainly used as trading media, lacking independent yield.

Now, RWA growth is supported by “real yields.” Stablecoin reserves are heavily allocated to US Treasuries and other income assets, creating sustainable income streams. Tokenized gold and US Treasuries bring risk-free or low-risk yields from traditional finance, backed by real economic activity, not just on-chain arbitrage. Bitfinex’s analysis emphasizes that infrastructure—on-chain assets can enable real-time transfers, global audits, and higher transparency compared to traditional settlement channels.

From a capital perspective, participant profiles have shifted. Institutional investors have entered in larger scales; corporate treasuries and asset managers are incorporating on-chain assets. The number of RWA holders exceeds 663,000, and stablecoin holders globally are about 232 million, reflecting increased on-chain USD usage in payments and finance.

Additionally, regulatory frameworks are maturing, which is a key difference. Hong Kong’s issuance of stablecoin licenses, the potential passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act in 2026, and Abu Dhabi’s cross-chain tokenized oil transfer are policy developments that are removing institutional barriers for large-scale RWA adoption.

What regionalization patterns are revealed by the cases of OSL and Mitsui & Co.?

OSL’s listing of gold and silver tokens and Mitsui & Co.’s deployment of ZPG on the Optimism mainnet are not isolated market moves but reveal different regional pathways for RWA tokenization.

OSL exemplifies a “compliant exchange-led” model. The Hong Kong-licensed OSL HK launched XAUm and XAGm, targeting professional investors in Hong Kong, with OTC trading. The core logic: leveraging the licensed exchange’s regulatory backing, OTC channels provide safe, compliant precious metal tokenization products for professional investors. OSL is the first compliant platform in Hong Kong to list both gold and silver tokens, aiming to enhance the structure of on-chain bulk commodities and move from single assets toward “portfolio diversification.”

Mitsui’s approach is a “traditional trading company-led” model. Since 2022, ZPG has operated under Japanese regulation on a private blockchain, only migrating to the public chain Optimism in April 2026. Its key features: traditional physical asset companies lead issuance and custody, with the public chain mainly providing liquidity and accessibility. Mitsui explicitly states that the goal of migrating to the public chain is “to improve global accessibility and liquidity,” using the efficiency and scalability of public chains to “provide gold-linked stability while enjoying DeFi benefits.”

This comparison reveals an important trend: RWA tokenization is not a linear evolution of a single technology but a multi-ecosystem shaped by regional financial infrastructure, regulation, and industry resources. Hong Kong relies on licensed exchanges for compliant product supply, while Japan leverages its physical asset resources through traditional trading firms. The intersection point is that public chains are becoming the underlying infrastructure connecting different regional RWA ecosystems.

What are the key structural risks in the RWA market?

Despite the strong growth in 2026, the RWA market faces certain structural risks. At this stage, at least three concerns are noteworthy.

First, the “idle” problem of tokenized assets. Many tokenized RWAs are still in a low or no-yield state, with a lack of effective DeFi integration. Without healthy interaction with lending protocols, structured products, and other on-chain financial tools, their value capture will be limited. Addressing this depends heavily on the continued growth of stablecoin liquidity.

Second, valuation and pricing transparency challenges. Compared to traditional ETFs, tokenized assets may exhibit significant price gaps across different liquidity sources. Research shows that at the “provider level,” price differences for the same trading path can widen to hundreds of basis points. This stems from liquidity fragmentation—assets across different blockchains and issuance platforms find it difficult to achieve seamless price discovery.

Third, regulatory uncertainty remains a major variable. Although Hong Kong has issued stablecoin licenses and the U.S. CLARITY Act may pass in 2026, global regulatory coordination remains slow. Divergent standards on asset classification, custody, and investor access could hinder cross-border liquidity of RWA assets.