Tokenisation has reached a stage where it is no longer worth asking whether the technology works. It does. What matters more is whether its use improves the economics of a particular asset.
The market is already providing a fairly precise answer. According to RWA.xyz, the value of assets distributed on-chain, excluding stablecoins, exceeds $38 billion. However, this value is not distributed evenly. Over $16.2 billion is accounted for by tokenised US Treasury bonds and money market funds. Tokenised property accounts for a mere $224 million or so. This disparity clearly illustrates where blockchain solves a real-world problem and where it primarily changes the form in which ownership is recorded.
Liquidity is more important than novelty
The most mature application of tokenisation is not property, art or collectables. It is instruments used for cash management.
In August, BlackRock launched tokenised money market fund units in Europe denominated in euros, US dollars and pounds. The products utilise J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys infrastructure and are designed, amongst other things, for liquidity management and collateralisation. Franklin Templeton, for its part, enables the use of tokenised money market fund units as collateral in over-the-counter institutional transactions.
From a business perspective, this is far more significant than the ability to trade a token around the clock. Capital invested in the asset can continue to generate income, whilst at the same time being quickly transferred, pledged or used in settlement. The token begins to fulfil an operational function.
This is precisely why short-term public debt and money market funds are currently the most compelling asset classes for tokenisation: they offer transparent pricing, high liquidity and standardised ownership rights.
Debt has more to gain than shares
The second natural area is bonds and other debt instruments. The Bank for International Settlements indicates that tokenised sovereign and supranational bond issues to date have totalled around $8 billion. In the sample studied, their issuance costs were comparable to those of traditional bonds, whilst bid-ask spreads were lower.
However, the economic benefits become apparent primarily after the issue. A single infrastructure can handle the register of ownership, payments, the transfer of securities, the calculation of interest and the settlement of transactions. The BIS draws particular attention to ‘atomic settlement’, i.e. the simultaneous transfer of securities and funds. In a traditional infrastructure, these processes still require the coordination of multiple systems, depositaries and intermediaries.
Tokenisation does not, therefore, increase the value of the bond itself. It can reduce the cost of servicing it and minimise the capital tied up between the transaction and settlement.
Receivables and private credit: strong economics, more challenging risk
Corporate assets that currently operate within decentralised systems hold even greater operational potential: trade receivables, invoice financing, private credit and asset-backed loans.
In July, POSCO International and LG CNS completed a trial involving the tokenisation of receivables arising from actual commercial transactions. The system enabled their issuance, transfer, settlement and access control, whilst the parties utilised a shared register of transaction data.
The benefit here is easy to quantify. A receivable can be verified, transferred or used as the basis for financing more quickly. Less manual data reconciliation means a shorter process and lower administrative costs.
Credit risk remains an issue. Blockchain can confirm the owner of a receivable and its transfer history. It cannot make an unreliable debtor solvent. In private credit, data quality, underwriting and the enforceability of rights remain more important than the distribution technology.
Property still lags behind the narrative
The tokenisation of property sounds intuitive: a single building can be divided into thousands of digital shares, thereby lowering the entry threshold. However, the data reveals the scale of the limitations. With over $38 billion in assets distributed on-chain, property accounts for just over $200 million. RWA.xyz also points out that secondary liquidity remains the primary limitation of this market.
A token divides ownership. It does not automatically create buyers, does not simplify the valuation of a building, and does not replace property law.
The market has already identified its first winners
In 2026, tokenisation is increasingly shifting from the ‘crypto-asset’ market towards financial infrastructure. The European Commission is working on extending the DLT Pilot Regime, whilst the ECB is preparing the infrastructure for settling tokenised assets in central bank money. At the same time, the current uptake of the European DLT pilot remains low.
Therefore, the assets that currently have the strongest practical business case are primarily those with unambiguous rights, predictable cash flows and high current handling costs: money market funds, bonds, receivables and certain types of private credit.
This is not because blockchain makes them more attractive. It is because, in these segments, the very process of transferring, settling and utilising capital is costly enough to make it worthwhile to overhaul it.
