Mentioned in This Article
1. What did Citrini Research say about real world assets?
Citrini Research, a firm followed closely on Wall Street, argued in a 79-page report titled Breaking the Wall that tokenized real world assets have given blockchains a clear purpose in finance. As of October 17, the open question for investors is which companies, networks and protocols will collect the revenue as stocks, bonds and funds move onchain.
For years, supporters of digital assets predicted that traditional financial instruments would eventually migrate onto blockchains. Citrini's report, published last week, is notable less for inventing that idea than for who is repeating it. The firm is better known for its work on broader technology, artificial intelligence and market trends than for crypto coverage, and its readership sits largely outside the digital asset industry.
The report itself is no longer breaking news. Even so, the reception it has drawn shows how far the conversation about tokenization has travelled. Its core line, that blockchains have finally found their reason for being, captures the shift in a single sentence and has become the shorthand for the thesis.
2. Why do real world assets matter to blockchains?
Real world assets matter because they answer a criticism that has followed crypto for a long time. Skeptics have often described the industry as a solution in search of a problem. Decentralized exchanges, lending protocols and wallets were built, but for the most part they were used to trade one crypto asset against another, which gave outsiders little reason to think the technology served the wider economy.
The industry did build real infrastructure along the way. Crypto developed systems for trading, for lending and for moving money, yet the assets most investors actually hold, such as stocks, bonds, credit and commodities, remained inside traditional finance. Those assets are now starting to move onto blockchain rails, and that movement gives the earlier infrastructure something substantial to carry.
Tokenization, in plain terms, means representing ownership of an existing asset as a digital token that lives on a blockchain. Treasuries, private credit, equities and investment funds are increasingly appearing in that form. The point is not merely that someone could trade a popular stock at 2 a.m. on a Sunday, although round-the-clock access is one visible benefit. The larger claim is about what becomes possible once the asset is a token.
3. How does tokenization make financial assets act like software?
Citrini's more interesting argument is that tokenization makes financial assets behave like software. A tokenized asset can move between applications, serve as collateral, be borrowed against or plug into other products, without every platform needing to rebuild its own custody and settlement systems. In a conventional setup, each of those steps typically requires separate agreements, separate record-keeping and separate reconciliation.
The ingredients for that outcome are, according to the thesis, falling into place together. Stablecoins have put cash onchain, giving tokenized assets a settlement currency that moves at the same speed. Wallets, exchanges and decentralized finance applications have matured. Large consumer platforms such as Robinhood (HOOD) and Coinbase (COIN) supply distribution, meaning a way to reach customers who already hold accounts.
Regulation is also moving. Authorities in the United States and in other jurisdictions are giving tokenized securities a clearer path, which reduces one of the main obstacles that institutions cited in earlier years. Recent examples include a move by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on tokenized trading of American stocks in September, South Korea's goal of a full tokenized securities market by February 2027, and Japan's plan for a blockchain-based settlement network covering stocks and government bonds.
4. Why is this a big deal if tokenization is not new?
Citrini is not the first to discover tokenization. Crypto-native investors have discussed real world assets, often shortened to RWA, for years, and the concept has circulated in industry conferences and research notes for a long time.
What is new is the messenger. A widely followed research shop from outside the crypto sector has translated the thesis into terms that large investors care about, and the most important of those terms is where the money gets made. That is a different conversation from whether the technology works, and it is considerably harder to answer than it first appears.
Citrini argued that tokenization could lift the broader crypto ecosystem. Yet putting more assets onchain does not automatically make bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH) or any specific host blockchain the best way to profit. Bitcoin was trading near $81,400 and ether near $2,410 at the time of writing, and neither price is tied in any direct way to how many bonds or shares are tokenized. The value could accrue to a variety of participants, and the report leaves the allocation question open.
5. Where will the money be made in tokenization?
Arthur Hayes, co-founder of the BitMEX exchange and chief investment officer of Maelstrom, put the problem bluntly in a recent interview. He said that tokenizing real world assets has been discussed for a decade, and that recording a security already held in a digital database somewhere else does not necessarily create much value. His summary of the skeptical case was “Okay, doing better bookkeeping. Thank you,” followed by the question, “Where are you actually going to make money in tokenization?”
There are several candidate answers. Tokenized stocks can generate issuance fees, trading revenue, demand for stablecoins, lending activity and use as collateral. Those revenue streams do not necessarily land in the same place. A firm that issues tokens, a venue that trades them, a protocol that lends against them and a network that settles them each capture a different slice, and the size of each slice is still uncertain.
Christian Magoon, chief executive of Amplify ETFs, which runs a tokenization-focused exchange-traded fund under the ticker TKNQ, said infrastructure providers could become the toll booths on blockchain roads. He added that distribution may prove just as valuable, pointing to Coinbase, Robinhood, banks and wealth platforms that already have established customer relationships. In his view, whoever owns the customer relationship holds a durable advantage whichever technology sits underneath.
6. Which networks and protocols could benefit most?
Jeff Dorman, chief investment officer at Arca, expects the act of tokenizing an asset to become a commodity as competition grows. If issuing a token is easy to replicate, fees for doing so are likely to shrink over time. He argued that the stickier economics arrive after the asset is onchain, through trading, lending and collateral use.
On that reading, the potential beneficiaries include Securitize (SECZ), Hyperliquid, Aave (AAVE) and the Aerodrome (AERO) decentralized exchange. These are businesses and protocols that earn money from activity around an asset rather than from the one-time step of creating it.
Zach Pandl, head of digital asset research at Grayscale, offered what he described as the simpler bet: the networks underneath. Owning the networks that host real world assets and process their transactions, he said, is the most direct position. He named Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana as the current leaders. Pandl added that Avalanche (AVAX) and Canton (CC) take more institutionally focused approaches and could see rising demand as banks and asset managers shift activity onchain.
The range of views illustrates the central difficulty. One camp points to infrastructure, another to distribution, another to applications that monetize activity, and another to the base layer networks. Each can be defended, and the answers are not mutually exclusive, but they imply very different portfolios.
7. Could AI agents be the real customers of tokenized assets?
Hayes sees a bigger story in which tokenization becomes more than bookkeeping. He said the narrative he would most like to tell is that AI agents will run all of a person's financial services. His example is software that rebalances a portfolio, moves idle cash to higher yields, finds cheaper loans and shifts collateral without constant human supervision.
Agents of that kind need programmatic, always-on access to money and investments. That description closely matches what crypto already offers: programmable assets, markets that never close, lending through smart contracts and near-instant settlement. A traditional brokerage account with business-hours trading and multi-day settlement is a poor fit for software that operates continuously.
Citrini reached a similar conclusion, describing tokenized assets as a machine-native format that AI agents can work with. If that reading proves correct, the eventual users of tokenized markets may include as many automated programs as human investors, which would change which products and networks are most in demand.
8. What happens next for tokenized assets?
No single date or decision settles the question, but the market is still at an early stage. Magoon cautioned that it is extremely early, with tokenized assets remaining small relative to global financial markets. In his words, the long runway ahead increases the likelihood that future winners may differ from today's leaders.
That caution is a useful counterweight to the enthusiasm around Citrini's report. The thesis that blockchains finally have a purpose can be true while the question of who profits stays unresolved. Investors weighing exposure will need to decide whether they are betting on the base networks, on the platforms that sell to customers, on the protocols that earn from activity or on firms that have not yet emerged.
It is also worth remembering why the debate matters beyond crypto. If tokenized assets do become common, the businesses that currently earn fees from clearing, custody and settlement could see pressure on their margins, while new intermediaries emerge in their place. That prospect is why the question of who profits is as relevant to traditional financial institutions as it is to blockchain developers.
For now, the regulatory timelines in the United States, South Korea and Japan offer the clearest markers of progress, and the commercial question that Hayes posed remains the one the industry has to answer.