Opinion: Most Tokenized Assets Are Still Traditional Finance Wrapped On-Chain

marsbitPublicado em 2026-05-25Última atualização em 2026-05-25

Resumo

**Summary:** A market analysis reveals that the vast majority of tokenized assets remain mere "wrappers" for traditional finance on-chain. Of 593 surveyed assets, 77.6% are "Wrapped" assets where the token exists on-chain but key lifecycle functions (issuance, redemption, custody, access) remain off-chain. Only 11.1% are "Hybrid" assets, where some operational logic (transfers, settlement, yield accrual) is migrating on-chain, representing the true beginning of transformation. A mere 2.7% are "Native" assets built with a fully on-chain operational model. This explains why stablecoins feel structurally advanced compared to other RWA—they are true on-chain financial primitives, not just digitized traditional processes. The key future distinction won't be between tokenized and non-tokenized assets, but between those that are merely distributed on-chain and those that begin to *operate* on-chain.

Author: Yaroslav Writtle

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: The RWA sector has been discussed for so long, yet 77.6% of tokenized assets are still just "on-chain wrapping paper" — the token is on-chain, but issuance, redemption, and custody are entirely off-chain. What's truly worth attention are the 11.1% of "hybrid" assets, which are moving part of their lifecycle on-chain. This explains why stablecoins feel far ahead of other RWAs: they are genuine on-chain financial primitives, not just digital shells for traditional processes.

Market Size Growing Faster Than Market Maturity

An effective way to understand this market is not to look at whether it's tokenized or not.

Instead, look at:

  • Wrapped
  • Hybrid
  • Native

A 2026 market survey covering 593 tokenized assets showed that 460 assets, or 77.6%, were still classified as wrapped. Only 66 assets, or 11.1%, were hybrid, and a mere 16 assets, or 2.7%, had reached a native state.

This is the true shape of the market.

Wrapped Remains the Default Form

Most tokenized assets improve distribution, not infrastructure.

The token exists on-chain.

Most of its lifecycle does not.

Issuance, redemption, custody, transfer permissions, pricing, and investor access still heavily rely on off-chain systems.

So surface growth may be real, but on-chain autonomy remains low.

Hybrid Is Where Real Transformation Begins

Hybrid is the part of the market worth watching.

This is where certain parts of the lifecycle begin migrating on-chain:

  • Transfer logic
  • Settlement processes
  • Yield accrual
  • Partial compliance or access controls

Not fully native.

But no longer just wrapping paper.

This middle category is still small, which is why the market feels like it's moving faster than it actually is.

Native Is Rare for a Reason

Native assets are rare because the bar is high.

To reach that level, it's not just about the token being on-chain.

The operating model must also be on-chain.

This includes:

  • Issuance and redemption
  • Transfer execution
  • Custody assumptions
  • Composability with other systems

Very few assets truly meet this standard today.

Stablecoins Still Feel Ahead of Other Assets

This also helps explain why stablecoins still feel structurally ahead of most RWAs.

They are closer to being true on-chain financial primitives.

Many other tokenized assets still resemble digital wrapping paper for traditional processes, rather than assets that genuinely operate within an on-chain financial system.

What Matters Next

The market doesn't need more proof that assets can be tokenized.

A more useful question now is: which parts of the lifecycle have truly migrated along with it?

This is where the next round of differentiation will occur.

Not between tokenized and non-tokenized.

But between assets that are still distributed on-chain, and assets that are beginning to operate on-chain.

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what percentage of tokenized assets are considered 'wrapped' and what does this category mean?

A77.6% of tokenized assets are considered 'wrapped'. This means the token exists on-chain, but key lifecycle functions like issuance, redemption, custody, transfer permissions, pricing, and investor access remain heavily dependent on off-chain systems.

QWhat is the 'hybrid' category of tokenized assets, and why does the article suggest it's the important one to watch?

AThe 'hybrid' category refers to assets where some parts of their lifecycle, like transfer logic, settlement, yield accrual, or compliance controls, are beginning to move on-chain. The article suggests this is the important category because it represents the real start of infrastructure transformation, moving beyond just being a digital wrapper for traditional processes.

QWhy are truly 'native' on-chain assets still so rare according to the analysis?

ATruly 'native' on-chain assets are rare because the bar is very high. It requires not just the token to be on-chain, but the entire operational model—including issuance, redemption, transfer execution, custody assumptions, and composability with other systems—to be fundamentally built on-chain.

QHow does the article explain the perceived structural lead of stablecoins over most other Real World Assets (RWAs)?

AThe article explains that stablecoins feel structurally ahead because they are closer to being genuine on-chain financial primitives. In contrast, many other tokenized RWAs still resemble digital wrappers for traditional financial processes, not assets operating within an on-chain financial system.

QWhat does the article propose as the key question for the next phase of development in tokenized assets?

AThe article proposes that the key question is no longer whether assets can be put on-chain, but which parts of their lifecycle are genuinely migrating on-chain. The next phase of differentiation will occur between assets that are merely distributed on-chain and those that are beginning to operate on-chain.

Leituras Relacionadas

New Fire Research Institute: Inflation May Become a Stubborn Problem, Can Cryptocurrencies Achieve Independent Performance in the Short Term?

New Fire Research Institute argues that despite the recent U.S. June CPI decline to 3.5% year-on-year—primarily driven by energy—core goods inflation remains persistent, with core PCE likely showing slight growth. Federal Reserve Chairman Wash has emphasized the Fed's independence and a "zero tolerance" stance on inflation, suggesting a continued hawkish posture that will pressure risk assets, especially if energy prices rise again. Concurrently, the semiconductor memory sector faces structural pressures, as seen in significant sell-offs for Micron and SK Hynix. High leverage in markets like South Korea is triggering deleveraging, amplifying volatility. Investors are also questioning the sustainability of AI-related capital expenditures. In contrast, the crypto market showed relative stability last week, with BTC and ETH gaining slightly. Positive developments include a shift to net inflows for U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs, a narrowing Coinbase discount, and strong activity on the Robinhood Chain ecosystem. The potential advancement of the U.S. CLARITY Act provides a policy catalyst. Overall, the probability of an independent crypto bull run in the short term is low, given overarching macro pressures. However, fundamentals are improving with ETF inflows and robust on-chain activity, providing solid support. Technically, BTC and ETH show strong support at key moving averages. New Fire Research maintains that Bitcoin around $60,000 represents a high-value allocation zone, with limited downside risk near current levels. The true bull market catalyst awaits a confirmed market bottom combined with a macro policy shift and legislative progress.

marsbitHá 27m

New Fire Research Institute: Inflation May Become a Stubborn Problem, Can Cryptocurrencies Achieve Independent Performance in the Short Term?

marsbitHá 27m

Base Under Pressure

**Title: The Pressure Mounts for Base** Base, the Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solution backed by Coinbase, is facing significant pressure and public scrutiny from its leadership following the launch of Robinhood Chain. Base co-founder Jesse Pollak recently acknowledged strategic missteps, admitting that the chain's past focus on social and creator tokens (e.g., through Farcaster, Zora) failed to deliver sustainable adoption. He has refocused on core infrastructure, handing leadership of the Base App back to Coinbase's Cobie. While Base remains a top L2 contender alongside OP Mainnet and Arbitrum, and boasts the highest TVL (nearly $12B), its weaknesses are being highlighted by the new competitor. Key criticisms include its slow progress on decentralization. Base has faced issues with its single sequencer causing block production halts, and L2BEAT is reportedly considering downgrading its decentralization rating from Stage 1 to Stage 0. This contrasts sharply with the rapid initial success of Robinhood Chain, whose DEX quickly entered the top five by volume. The leadership styles of the parent companies are also being compared: Robinhood's CEO actively engages with new projects, while a recent incident where Coinbase's Brian Armstrong briefly changed his profile picture—sparking and then crashing a related meme token—drew community ire and mockery. Pollak stated Base is working with Coinbase on tokenized stocks backed 1:1 by real equity, differentiating it from Robinhood's derivatives model. However, the article argues that Base's most urgent task is to address its long-standing technical and trust issues. With more traditional finance players likely to emulate Robinhood's path, Base must use this competitive pressure to solidify its position as long-term financial infrastructure.

Foresight NewsHá 44m

Base Under Pressure

Foresight NewsHá 44m

White House Concession Removes Ethical Hurdle, Clarity Act Races Against Final Window Before Recess?

On July 21st, industry sources reported that the Trump administration has agreed to include an ethics provision in the "Clarity Act" (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025). This concession addresses the long-standing conflict-of-interest concerns regarding government officials and the crypto industry, potentially removing the final major obstacle to the bill's progress. Additionally, Patrick Witt, the executive director of the White House's Digital Asset Advisory Committee, confirmed he will remain in his role to help finalize the bill, alleviating previous concerns about his potential departure. The Clarity Act aims to establish a unified federal regulatory framework for the U.S. digital asset market. Its core objective is to resolve regulatory ambiguity by defining different types of digital assets (digital commodities, investment contract assets, and permitted payment stablecoins) and clarifying the respective oversight roles of the SEC and CFTC. This would end the long-running jurisdictional dispute between the two agencies and provide clearer compliance paths for the industry. With the ethics issue moving toward resolution, the most urgent challenge now is time. The U.S. Congress is set to begin its August recess in mid-August, leaving only a few working weeks to finalize the text and advance the bill through the Senate. Industry advocates, like the Blockchain Association's Kristin Smith, stress that this is a critical moment. If negotiations conclude successfully in the coming weeks, the Clarity Act could pass a key hurdle before the recess; otherwise, it may face significant delays. If enacted, the Clarity Act could mark a historic turning point in crypto regulation. By providing a clearer and more predictable legal framework, it aims to reduce uncertainty for businesses, developers, and traditional financial institutions looking to enter the digital asset space, potentially setting a global benchmark for market structure regulation.

Odaily星球日报Há 49m

White House Concession Removes Ethical Hurdle, Clarity Act Races Against Final Window Before Recess?

Odaily星球日报Há 49m

Trading

Spot
活动图片