RWA tokenization has seen expanded use quite rapidly across government debt, private credit, and early commodity markets. Tokenized US government bonds are now the main entry point for large institutions into blockchain-based finance. By 2026, most of this RWA growth is coming from regulated financial firms, asset managers, and fintech companies, not crypto-native investors.
Notwithstanding, the system is still a mix of old and new finance. Assets may be issued and settled on-chain, but pricing, trading activity, and liquidity still depend heavily on traditional financial markets. So the current setup sports a two-layer system: blockchain handles record-keeping and settlement, while traditional finance still controls how prices are set and how money flows in the market.
Now, if tokenization claims, and maybe has even proven to successfully improve issuance and settlement efficiency, why has it not yet produced equally efficient secondary markets?
TL;DR
RWA tokenization has grown to approximately $31.8 billion in on-chain value by mid-2026, driven almost entirely by institutional demand rather than retail participation
Tokenized US Treasuries dominate the sector at roughly $12.99 billion, up 225.5% since early 2025, because they require no restructuring of the underlying asset, only changes to settlement, transfer, and custody layers
Tokenized gold is the exception to the liquidity problem, with $90.7 billion in spot trading volume in Q1 2026 alone, surpassing total 2025 gold token trading in a single quarter
Only roughly 10% of tokenized RWA value is actively used in DeFi or secondary markets; the rest is held passively, revealing that tokenization has improved issuance and settlement far more than it has improved liquidity
Retail participation remains largely locked out by accreditation requirements, KYC onboarding, and transfer restrictions embedded at the contract level, meaning “democratized access” remains more promise than reality
Expansion of Tokenized Government Securities
In 2026, the most developed part of RWA tokenization is sovereign debt, particularly short-duration government securities. These assets form the base of the system because they work very similarly to traditional money market instruments, so they can be moved onto blockchain systems without much change.
Growth in tokenized treasuries and sovereign debt products
Tokenized US Treasuries have grown into a multi-billion-dollar market. Market structure data shows that tokenized Treasuries market cap climbed an impressive 225.5% since early 2025, with total value ranging between $12.99 billion across 55,520 holders in March 2026 and $13.5 billion by April 2026, with the category aiming as high as $15 billion by mid-2026.
Three reinforcing factors explain this top ranking:
First, Treasuries are highly standardized instruments. They already have uniform pricing models, globally recognized risk profiles, and deep liquidity in traditional markets. This removes much of the friction associated with tokenizing complex tokenized real-world assets.
Second, they operate as cash-equivalent instruments in institutional portfolios. Their short duration and predictable yield profile make them ideal for liquidity management, collateral allocation, and short-term treasury optimization.
Third, they already function across both traditional finance and emerging digital ecosystems. In TradFi, they are widely used in repo markets and collateral frameworks. In DeFi, they are increasingly integrated into lending protocols, making them one of the few tokenized real-world assets with immediate multi-system utility.
Unlike private credit or real estate, tokenizing Treasuries does not require rebuilding the underlying asset structure. Instead, tokenization modifies only the settlement, transfer, and custody layers.
This reduces three key issues:
valuation uncertainty (already market-priced)
legal ambiguity (already standardized contracts)
custody complexity (already institutionalized)
As a result, Treasuries act as an entry-layer asset class for blockchain-based capital markets rather than a new financial innovation category.
Activity in Real Estate and Commodity Tokenization
Outside sovereign debt, real estate, and commodities represent the most direct attempts to extend tokenization into physical-world assets. However, their adoption patterns reveal structural constraints that go beyond technology.
Data shows tokenized real estate remains relatively small compared with financial RWAs, with an estimated $2B–$3B of on-chain real estate exposure in 2026, despite broader RWA growth. Platforms such as RealT, Lofty, and property-focused SPV structures continue to dominate this segment through fractional ownership models rather than direct title transfers.
The primary challenge is fragmentation across jurisdictional systems. Real estate is governed by localized legal frameworks, including property rights, taxation structures, zoning laws, and enforcement mechanisms. Unlike financial securities, there is no global standardization layer that allows seamless cross-border representation.
Most implementations therefore, rely on SPVs or structured entities rather than direct property ownership. Investors gain exposure to economic outcomes, such as rental income or appreciation, but not full legal title to underlying assets.
Why gold dominates commodity tokenization
Commodity tokenization has scaled more effectively, reaching approximately $5.55 billion by 2026. However, this RWA growth is highly concentrated in gold-backed instruments rather than diversified commodity exposure.
Two products dominate:
Tether Gold (XAUT)
Pax Gold (PAXG)
Together, they make up almost 89% of the growth in commodity tokenization.
The reason behind this lies in the fundamental rule: assets that already have global price benchmarks and deep traditional market liquidity are the easiest to tokenize, since the hard problem of price discovery is already solved.
In particular, gold enjoys the following advantages:
Global price benchmarking
Institutional demand as a hedge instrument
Well-established storage facilities
Fungibility across borders
In this situation, the tokenization serves to increase the existing liquidity and not to create new liquidity. In addition, spot trading volumes of tokenized gold increased to $90.7 billion in the first quarter of 2026, exceeding the $84.6 billion annual volume recorded in 2025.
Institutional Participation and Pilot Programmes
The role of institutional capital in the RWA growth in 2026 is predominant. But their involvement is experimental, gradual, and based on the infrastructure.
Role of banks, asset managers, and fintech firms in RWA pilots
The market valuation of RWA on-chain hit around $31.8 billion in 2026, where most capital is raised from regulated institutions.
Main institutional products are:
Blackrock BUIDL: ~$2.5B AUM
Circle USYC: ~$2.4 – $3.0B AUM
Franklin Templeton BENJI: ~$1.0 – $1.2B AUM
Ondo Finance OUSG: ~$600M – $700M AUM
All these products have common features in terms of design, as they recreate exposure to money market funds.
Infrastructure intermediaries as system enablers
Platforms like Securitize and other infrastructure providers serve as crucial coordination intermediaries between the traditional financial world and the blockchain-based one, dealing with onboarding, compliance, asset issuance processes, and transfer limitations.
Another equally vital role is being played by custodians and settlement networks, which guarantee the legal conformity of digital tokens to off-chain assets. Without these intermediaries, institutional participation would not be operationally viable at scale.
Pilot systems vs live markets
A key structural distinction in RWA markets is the difference between experimental issuance environments and fully functional trading systems, and most current activity still sits closer to the former than the latter.
Pilot programs are typically characterized by limited investor participation, controlled liquidity environments, predefined settlement conditions, and restricted secondary trading. They are designed to test infrastructure and compliance workflows rather than to support open market activity at scale.
Live markets demand something fundamentally different. Continuous price discovery, open liquidity formation, scalable issuance and redemption, and broad investor participation are all baseline requirements for a functioning market, not optional features. Without them, assets may exist on-chain but cannot be traded with the efficiency that tokenization promises.
The gap between these two modes is where most tokenized RWA activity currently sits. Assets are being issued, held, and settled, but the conditions for genuine market depth have not yet been met across most categories outside tokenized gold.
Liquidity Depth Across Tokenized Markets
Liquidity continues to be one of the most persistent structural shortcomings in the RWA market structure. Although issuance has become extremely fast-paced, the trading volumes have not increased in accordance.
The on-chain value of all the RWAs was about $31.8 billion as of mid-2026. However, the figure is a rough estimation of total issuance and passive and active trades, and it cannot be a precise representation of market depth.
Market dynamics are highly dependent on the asset types. Tokenized gold, for example, shows more frequent trading activity and participation than issuance itself, unlike Treasuries or private credit. It suggests that the formation of liquidity is not related only to asset size.
Issuance vs Secondary Trading Activity
The gap between issuance and secondary trading remains one of the clearest indicators of early-stage market development.
Issuance reflects asset creation on-chain. Liquidity reflects whether those assets can be traded on an open market basis.
The difference is considerable:
Tokenized commodities: Market cap $5.55 billion
Gold tokens trading volume: $90.7 billion for 2026
Although there are $27 billion worth of tokenized RWAs available, only $2.7 billion or 10% of tokenized RWAs are put into actual use via DeFi or secondary liquidity solutions, whereas the rest is held passively or custodially.
The above illustrates one of the most important conclusions: tokenization works better as a settlement and recordkeeping platform than as a source of liquidity.
Access Limitations for Retail Participants
Despite stories of democratized access, participation within the framework is still limited. The vast majority of tokenized Treasury and Money Market assets function as funds and, as such, are only accessible to accredited investors. As a result, it becomes impossible to purchase or trade the tokens as is usually done with traditional cryptocurrency tokens.
Research into the implementation of RWA reveals that a number of solutions have permissioned access layers built on top of their blockchain architecture.
Barriers such as accreditation rules, jurisdiction limits, and platform restrictions
The main barriers to retail participation are structural rather than technical.
Many tokenized RWA platforms enforce a combination of:
Investor accreditation requirements (limiting participation to qualified or institutional investors)
Geographic restrictions based on securities law jurisdiction
KYC/AML onboarding before wallet whitelisting
Transfer restrictions embedded at the smart contract or custody layer
Platform-controlled secondary markets instead of open trading venues
These challenges mean that even though assets exist on-chain, ownership rights are often conditional on off-chain legal approval. In many cases, tokenization functions as a digitized wrapper for regulated securities, not an open-access investment system.
There are small signs of change. Some regulated tokenized funds, such as BlackRock’s BUIDL fund and Franklin Templeton’s OnChain US Government Money Fund, now allow more flexible same-day transfers or settlement. However, these changes still follow normal compliance rules and do not remove regulatory requirements.
Development of Secondary Markets
Secondary market facilities are currently being developed, but are still fragmented across several systems instead of creating a single trading platform.
Progress on the development of trading platforms for tokenized assets
The development of secondary market facilities is taking place at three different levels:
Regulated exchanges
DeFi liquidity protocols
Institutional settlement platforms
Conventional stock exchanges like ICE are developing continuous trading platforms for tokenized securities, with the intention to integrate the efficiencies of both order book and blockchain settlements into their platforms.
Regulated digital asset platforms are concurrently developing permissioned trading facilities with built-in compliance and custodian systems.
Defi protocols are being developed into programmable liquidity layer platforms for lending and collateralization of tokenized assets.
Role of exchanges, DeFi platforms, and custodians
The secondary market structure is being defined through three main infrastructure players:
Exchanges (regulated trading facilities)
Licensed exchanges and alternative trading facilities have emerged as key conduits for trading of tokenized assets via compliant means. These facilities mirror traditional market structures, complete with order books, market-makers, and licensed participant onboarding.
DeFi (on-chain liquidity facilities)
Decentralized protocols create liquidity that allows for the usage of tokenized assets in lending, collateralization, and automated trading. Their role is increasingly that of a programmable execution layer rather than a fully open global market, due to jurisdictional and compliance constraints.
Custodians and settlement providers (ownership infrastructure)
Custodial firms and tokenization service providers take care of the connection between the on-chain tokens and the off-chain ownership of the assets.
These layers together create a decentralized market structure where the activities of trade, clearing, and custody are separated from each other rather than being united at one place.
What is needed for real market integration
For secondary markets to become integrated trading environments rather than disjointed venues, the following structural requirements have to be met:
Market-making activities that continue in tokenized asset classes
Lower fragmentation through liquidity routing or interoperability among venues
Enhanced connectivity for settlements between traditional and on-chain systems
Establishment of a legal regime for the transferability and ownership of tokenized assets
Higher participation of investors than those in restricted or permissioned groups
With these conditions, the benefits of tokenization lie only in improved issuance and settlement processes, leaving the secondary transactions dispersed in parallel systems.
Structural Constraints Affecting Adoption
Despite rapid progress in asset digitization, RWA tokenization still operates within structural boundaries that are not technological, but legal, institutional, and infrastructural.
Regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions
One of the biggest constraints on RWA tokenization is that regulation is still split across major financial centers, with no shared global standard for how tokenized assets should be classified or enforced.
In practice, the same tokenized product can be treated differently depending on jurisdiction. For example, a tokenized Treasury fund issued in the US has to comply with securities regulations controlled by regulators such as the SEC, whereas their counterparts in Europe are subject to rules such as MiCA that provide distinct regulations for custody, issuance, and disclosures. As a result, issuers have to design separate products for both jurisdictions and not scale one product globally.
Legal enforceability of tokenized ownership claims
Even after rules are satisfied, ownership remains a separate problem. A key limitation in RWA tokenization is that holding a token does not always mean holding direct legal ownership of the underlying asset.
In most real-world implementations, tokenized assets work through regulated off-chain structures. For example, assets such as the Treasury fund tokens will usually be held in custodial wallets, SPVs, or trusts regulated, but the token itself will hold an interest in the asset value.
This creates a split system:
On-chain, where the token is used in transfer, settlement, and trade
Off-chain, where the legal ownership is defined through regular contracts and regulatory regimes
Enforcement will still lie with the court and the regulators, rather than with the blockchain. This implies that the law enforcers can still take measures against the custodians, for example, requiring them to freeze and restrict access to the assets behind the token.
As a result, tokenization does not eliminate any legal risk but rather transforms it into another system of risk. The problem is to determine which of the systems to rely upon.
Has RWA Tokenization Fully Fulfilled Its Purpose
Not yet. RWA tokenization has improved issuance, transfer, and settlement efficiency for real-world assets and created a growing market for tokenized Treasuries, commodities, and institutional products.
But if the goal is deeper liquidity, broader access, and more open markets, results remain limited. Most activity is still concentrated in regulated products, secondary markets remain shallow, retail participation is restricted, and ownership enforcement still depends on traditional legal systems. So far, tokenization has improved infrastructure more than market outcomes.
Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be considered trading or investment advice. Nothing herein should be construed as financial, legal, or tax advice. Trading or investing in cryptocurrencies carries a considerable risk of financial loss. Always conduct due diligence.
Enjoyed this? Bookmark DeFi Planet, explore related topics, and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and CoinMarketCap Community for seamless access to high-quality industry insights.
Take control of your crypto portfolio with DEFI PLANET PRO, DeFi Planet’s suite of analytics tools.
