More Holders, Little Trading: The RWA Liquidity Problem Is Worse Than You Think

More Holders, Little Trading: The RWA Liquidity Problem Is Worse Than You Think

Let me ask you something straight. Does real-world asset trading on crypto exchanges feel like a genuine revolution, or does it feel like a warehouse full of boxes nobody opens? I think you know the answer.

The RWA sector has a serious liquidity problem, and saying it out loud shouldn’t make anyone uncomfortable. The numbers tell the story better than any narrative can.

The Scale of the Liquidity Gap

Start with the scale of the gap. Pantera Capital’s September 2026 report surveyed 671 tokenized assets worth a combined $331.8 billion. Permissioned products, the kind that require whitelisting and approval to hold, make up 59% of the total market cap. They contribute exactly 0.2% of spot trading volume. Read that again.

More than 50% of this sector’s value barely moves. Open-access products account for 41% of market cap and generate 99.8% of all spot trading. The sector splits cleanly into two worlds. One world trades. The other sits still.

BlackRock’s BUIDL fund offers the clearest illustration. The fund holds $2.77 billion across 10 chains. It has 106 investors and recorded just 191 transfers in a single month. That’s roughly six transfers per day for a multi-billion-dollar product.

Franklin Templeton’s BENJI fund reported 562 holders and $0 in monthly transfer volume. Compare that velocity with stablecoins, which turn over roughly 21 times their float every month. BUIDL turns over 0.12 times. That is a 180-fold gap in how much these assets actually move.

The IMF weighed in with its October 2026 Global Financial Stability Report, and the findings deserve attention. IMF staff described tokenized markets as small, fragmented, relatively illiquid and roughly 1.5 times more volatile than traditional counterparts. Most tokenized activity happens in repurchase agreements, which average $300 billion to $350 billion in daily volume.

Everything else, including credit, money market funds and tokenized equities, adds just $65 billion. To put that in perspective, the US repo market alone trades about $13 trillion daily. The entire tokenized universe outside repos represents a rounding error against traditional finance.

Holder Growth Does Not Equal Liquidity

Now here comes the counterargument, and it has real data behind it. BNB Chain’s RWA holder count crossed 2 million in early October 2026, reaching 2,032,387 addresses, up 15.56% in just 30 days.

Tokenized stockholders across all chains hit 4.3 million by late September, a 43-fold increase in a single year. BNB Chain alone holds 39% of all on-chain RWA holders. These growth rates look spectacular. They also demand context.

Holder counts and trading depth are entirely different things. Only 29 of 110 major tokenized products, those with market caps above $10 million, meet even basic thresholds for both liquidity and distribution. That is roughly 26%. More than 50% of the analysed market shows no meaningful secondary trading activity.

Why Some Tokenized Assets Trade Better

Tokenized gold stands as the exception that proves the rule. PAXG and XAUT together generated $90.7 billion in Q1 2026 spot volume, surpassing the full-year 2025 total of $84.64 billion. Average monthly spot volumes reached $5.72 billion for PAXG and $5.32 billion for XAUT.

Gold works because it has natural turnover, broad appeal and deep market-maker interest. Tokenized treasuries do not work the same way because they function as buy-and-hold instruments. The Pantera data shows tokenized stocks achieving 204.6% monthly turnover while rate products languish at 0.1%. The asset class determines the liquidity profile, not the blockchain.

Turnover rates for tokenized stocks hit 204.6% in June, making them the most actively traded RWA category. The market is not uniformly illiquid. The problem is concentrated in the market-cap-dominant products. Tokenized treasuries grew from $13 billion to $16.5 billion between Q1 and Q2 2026, yet they generate almost no secondary trading.

Private credit expanded from $4.1 billion to $5.1 billion, with similarly low turnover. The biggest, most institutional products are precisely the ones that do not trade.

Metric / Feature

Tokenized Stocks

Tokenized Rate Products

Monthly Turnover

204.6%

0.1%

Investor Behaviour

Active trading, speculation, hedging and high velocity.

Buy-and-hold, capital preservation and yield-earning.

Liquidity Profile

High velocity; ownership changes hands multiple times a month.

Low velocity; capital sits quietly until maturity or remains in a long-term allocation.

Table: Tokenized Stocks vs. Tokenized Rate Products

Issuance Is Easy, but Liquidity Is Not

This is the inflated part. Issuance has become easy. Wrapping a treasury bill or a stock into a token requires technical work, not a market miracle. Creating a liquid secondary market demands market makers, regulatory clarity, interoperable venues and genuine demand from traders who want to buy and sell continuously.

Those pieces do not exist yet for most RWAs. The Tokenization Preparedness Index, which Pantera introduced to measure how natively an asset operates on-chain, scored just 2.04 out of a possible higher range across the sample. Most assets are simple wrappers, not native instruments.

Look at where actual trading activity concentrates. Tokenized stock perpetual futures on platforms like Hyperliquid generated $67.8 billion in June volume, 16 times the spot market for the underlying tokens. Traders prefer derivatives because they offer leverage, easier shorting and liquidity from concentrated market-making.

The spot tokens themselves remain thin. This pattern mirrors how crypto markets developed for native assets, and it suggests the RWA spot market will eventually catch up. It also confirms that the spot market isn’t where the action is right now.

Adoption Is Real, but Depth Remains Limited

I believe the run is real. Tokenization solves genuine problems around settlement speed, fractional ownership and 24/7 access. The IMF found that more than 50% of tokenized equity trading occurs outside traditional market hours and that roughly 80% of the analysed trades were for fewer than one share, suggesting retail investors are using these products to access opportunities they could not otherwise access.

That is meaningful adoption. But meaningful adoption of a product does not equal deep, reliable liquidity. A user who buys a fractional share and holds it contributes to the holder count without adding to market depth.

A more sustainable version of this sector, which I expect to see within two to three years, will look different. Open-access tokens will dominate trading, not permissioned ones. RWAs will find routine use as collateral in DeFi lending, a trend already visible on platforms like Morpho, where private credit leads utilisation.

Market makers will build hybrid venues that connect centralised exchange order books with on-chain pools. Clearer regulation in major jurisdictions will reduce the friction that currently keeps assets locked behind whitelists. The Tokenization Preparedness Index will rise as products become more native and less wrapper-like.

The Next Run Needs Better Market Structure

The current phase is a beginning, and beginnings are messy. As Jeff Yan from Hyperliquid put it: “Overrated”.

I believe the start needs to be better, not because the technology fails, but because the market structure around it has not caught up. When it does, the next run will rest on trading depth rather than holder inflation. That run will last longer and matter more.

 

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author. The latest book is Web4: The Age of Autonomous Intelligence.

j j j

Tokenized Securities: A Financial Revolution or Just Hype?

Tokenized Securities: A Financial Revolution or Just Hype?

Remember that scene in “The Wolf of Wall Street” where Jordan Belfort is barking orders on the trading floor? That’s the traditional world of finance – fast-paced, high-pressure, and dominated by human intuition. But what if I told you robots and video game mechanics are about to crash the party?

Enter tokenized securities. This fancy term essentially means converting traditional investments like stocks, bonds, and even real estate into digital tokens that live on a blockchain, the same technology behind cryptocurrencies. Proponents are calling it a revolutionary step forward, promising to make investing cheaper, easier, and accessible to everyone. Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, I’m here to tell you it’s a mixed bag.

The Tokenized Dream: Lower Costs, Faster Trades, and Global Investors

Imagine a world where you can buy a fraction of a million-dollar mansion in Miami or invest in a hot startup with just a few clicks on your phone. That’s the promise of tokenization. By cutting out middlemen and leveraging the magic of blockchain, the theory goes that tokenized securities will be cheaper to trade, settle faster, and be accessible 24/7 to a global pool of investors. Sounds pretty darn convenient, doesn’t it?

Hold Your Horses: The Not-So-Glittering Side

Before you pack your bags and head to Wall Street to become a crypto-millionaire, let’s get real. Tokenization isn’t a magic bullet. While it might eliminate some fees, it also creates new ones. Building a secure and compliant platform for tokenizing your assets can be a hefty upfront cost. Plus, there’s the ongoing expense of cybersecurity, legal compliance, and maintaining the platform itself. Think of it like building a fancy new house – sure, it’s beautiful, but the upkeep can be a real pain.

Traditional Listing vs. Tokenization: A Cost Showdown

So, how does tokenization stack up against the traditional listing route, like going public on the NYSE? Traditional listings come with their own set of hefty fees, including underwriting, compliance, and listing costs. An IPO (Initial Public Offering) can easily set you back millions, not to mention ongoing compliance headaches.

On the other hand, tokenization could potentially slash some of these costs. Remember that 24/7 access and the potential for a global investor base? That can translate to lower transaction fees and more liquidity, meaning it’s easier to buy and sell your tokens. But here’s the catch: those savings might be eaten up by the costs of robust cybersecurity and navigating a constantly evolving regulatory landscape. It’s like playing a game with ever-changing rules.

Not All Companies Are Created Equal: Who Benefits Most from Tokenization?

Just like shoes, tokenization isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Let’s break it down by business type:

  • Startups and Small Businesses: Struggling to get funding through traditional channels? Tokenization might be your knight in shining armor. It provides an alternative way to raise capital by tapping into a global pool of investors, even for those without a Wall Street pedigree. Plus, you can offer fractional ownership, meaning even small-time investors can get a piece of the action. Think of it like crowdfunding on steroids.
  • Real Estate and Private Equity: Ever wanted to own a piece of the Eiffel Tower, but the price tag is a bit out of your league? Tokenization can make that dream a reality. By tokenizing real estate assets, companies can offer fractional ownership, making high-value properties accessible to a wider range of investors. It’s like buying a slice of that fancy cake you’ve been eyeing, instead of having to purchase the whole thing.
  • Niche Markets and Specialized Assets: Got a one-of-a-kind painting or a rare baseball card collecting dust in your attic? Tokenization can unlock its value and attract a broader investor base. It allows for fractional ownership and secondary market trading of unique assets that would otherwise be difficult to sell. Think of it like turning your collectibles into digital trading cards, with a much bigger marketplace.

The Case of Real Estate Tokenization: Not All Properties Are Created Equal

Real estate often gets touted as a prime candidate for tokenization, but hold on a sec. Not every property is a good fit. Imagine trying to sell a fixer-upper in a bad neighborhood through fancy tokens. It wouldn’t work, would it? The same goes for tokenized real estate. Regulatory hurdles, the quality of the underlying asset, and market dynamics all play a crucial role.

  • Quality of the Asset: Tokenizing a run-down building won’t magically transform it into a prime investment. Investors aren’t lining up to buy tokens for a property with low occupancy rates, structural issues, or a terrible location. Just like a house needs a good foundation, tokenized real estate needs strong underlying assets to be successful.
  • Market Dynamics: Remember that global pool of investors we talked about earlier? Well, for tokenized real estate to truly be liquid (meaning easy to buy and sell), there needs to be a critical mass of participants in the market. Imagine a cool new game with no players – not much fun, right? The same goes for tokenized real estate. Without enough buyers and sellers, the tokens can become illiquid, defeating the purpose of easier investment. Plus, convincing everyone that tokenized real estate is a good investment takes time.
  • Regulatory Hurdles: Real estate is a heavily regulated industry, and tokenization adds another layer of complexity. Different jurisdictions have varying rules and compliance requirements. Imagine navigating a maze with ever-changing walls – that’s what companies trying to tokenize real estate face. These legal headaches can be expensive and time-consuming, potentially outweighing the cost benefits of tokenization.

So, Should You Ditch Traditional Listing and Go All-In on Tokenization?

Not so fast! While tokenization offers exciting possibilities, it’s not a silver bullet. The effectiveness and cost-efficiency depend on various factors. For companies in heavily regulated industries or with complex assets, traditional listing might still be the safer bet. Think of it like a tried-and-true recipe – it might not be flashy, but you know it’ll deliver delicious results.

On the other hand, for innovative startups, tech companies, and businesses with unique assets, tokenization presents a compelling alternative. The ability to tap into a global investor pool, offer fractional ownership, and potentially increase liquidity can be significant advantages. But remember, these benefits come with the responsibility of building and maintaining a secure and compliant platform.

The Bottom Line: Tokenization – A Promising Future, But Do Your Homework

Tokenization has the potential to be a game-changer, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Companies considering tokenization need to carefully assess the feasibility and potential benefits for their specific situation. Just like you wouldn’t jump into a swimming pool without knowing how deep it is, don’t dive headfirst into tokenization without doing your due diligence.

The future of finance is likely to see a blend of traditional and tokenized approaches. As regulations evolve and technology advances, tokenization’s potential to complement or even disrupt traditional financial mechanisms will become clearer. This will allow companies to make more informed and strategic decisions about how to raise capital and attract investors. So, buckle up, because the future of finance is about to get a whole lot more interesting!

 

Source: https://wishu.io/tokenized-securities-a-financial-revolution-or-just-hype/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author. The latest book is Web4: The Age of Autonomous Intelligence.

j j j