Executive TL;DR• Not all real-world assets are equally ready for tokenisation. The evidence of which categories have scaled US Treasuries past $10 billion, private credit overtaking Treasuries, tokenised gold recording $90B in Q1 2026 spot trading and which have not scaled despite years of effort tells a story about what actually determines tokenisation readiness. • Five factors determine readiness: legal clarity (is ownership definitively transferable in digital form?), liquidity of the underlying (is there a functioning market for the underlying asset?), valuation transparency (can the asset be continuously and credibly priced?), regulatory alignment (has the relevant regulator provided clear guidance?), and institutional demand (does an investor cohort with the scale to move the market want it?) • Top tier (already scaled): US Treasuries, money market funds, tokenised gold, tokenised public equities. These share the properties that make tokenisation work: liquid underlying markets, transparent pricing, clear legal ownership, and established institutional demand. • Middle tier (scaling but constrained): private credit, infrastructure debt, tokenised real estate (commercial, institutional-grade). These have institutional demand but face specific frictions illiquid underlying, complex ownership structures, valuation disputes. • Lower tier (conceptually attractive, practically difficult): fine art, intellectual property, carbon credits, private equity, agricultural commodities, healthcare receivables. Each faces structural obstacles that no amount of blockchain infrastructure solves. |
The most common mistake in RWA tokenisation analysis is treating all asset classes as equivalent tokenisation opportunities and ascribing the same adoption timeline to each. The evidence of 2021-2026 shows that this is wrong: some asset classes scaled from near zero to billions in months; others have been described as ‘the next tokenisation wave’ for years without meaningful institutional scale. The difference is not blockchain technology it is the structural readiness of the underlying asset for tokenisation. This hierarchy maps that readiness systematically.
The Five Readiness Factors
Before scoring individual asset classes, the criteria used in this hierarchy need to be defined precisely.
| Factor | What It Means | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Legal clarity | Is the ownership right clearly defined, legally transferable, and enforceable in digital form in the relevant jurisdiction? | Without legal clarity, token holders may have digital exposure without legal ownership |
| Underlying liquidity | Does the underlying asset have an active, functioning secondary market independent of tokenisation? | A tokenised illiquid asset is still illiquid; tokenisation does not create secondary market demand |
| Valuation transparency | Can the asset’s value be continuously and credibly determined from market data or an independent source? | Without reliable valuation, tokens cannot be accurately priced or used as collateral |
| Regulatory alignment | Has the relevant regulator provided clear guidance on the tokenised form of this asset? | Regulatory uncertainty delays institutional adoption regardless of technical readiness |
| Institutional demand | Is there a sufficiently large investor base with interest in tokenised access to this asset class? | Market size determines whether sufficient capital will flow to make a tokenised market viable |
The Full Asset Class Hierarchy
| Asset Class | Legal Clarity | Underlying Liquidity | Valuation Transparency | Regulatory Alignment | Institutional Demand | Overall Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US Treasuries / Govt Bonds | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | Tier 1 — Scaled |
| Money Market Funds | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | Tier 1 — Scaled |
| Tokenised Gold / Precious Metals | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | Tier 1 — Scaled |
| Tokenised Public Equities | ★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★★★ | Tier 1 — Scaling |
| Investment-Grade Corporate Bonds | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | ★★★★ | Tier 2 — Developing |
| Private Credit | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★★★ | Tier 2 — Scaling (demand-driven) |
| Infrastructure Debt | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★★★ | Tier 2 — Early |
| Commercial Real Estate | ★★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Tier 2 — Constrained |
| Tokenised ETFs | ★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★★ | Tier 2 — Scaling |
| Carbon Credits | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | Tier 3 — Structural Problems |
| Residential Real Estate | ★★ | ★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | Tier 3 — Very Difficult |
| Private Equity | ★★ | ★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | Tier 3 — Long Timeline |
| Fine Art | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | Tier 4 — Conceptual |
| Intellectual Property | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★★ | Tier 4 — Conceptual |
| Agricultural Commodities | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★ | Tier 3 — Nascent |
Why Tier 1 Categories Scaled First
The US Treasuries and money market fund category crossed $10 billion because it possesses every readiness factor at maximum strength: US government debt has the clearest legal ownership structure in global finance, trades in the most liquid secondary market in the world, has continuous and universally accepted pricing, sits within well-established regulatory frameworks in every major jurisdiction, and has enormous institutional demand as the default cash management instrument for institutional portfolios.
Every subsequent tokenisation project that succeeded found a version of this combination. Tokenised gold benefits from physical commodities’ clear legal ownership, continuous CME price discovery, and cross-jurisdictional regulatory recognition. Tokenised public equities benefit from exchange-traded securities’ clear legal structure, continuous price discovery, and enormous existing investor demand the friction being regulatory (securities law applies across jurisdictions) rather than structural.
Why Private Credit Is Tier 2 Despite Leading by Value
Private credit has overtaken Treasuries as the largest non-stablecoin RWA segment by value but it scores as Tier 2 on this framework rather than Tier 1. The reason illustrates the distinction between market size and structural readiness. Private credit scaled because institutional demand for yield is enormous and tokenisation provides distribution infrastructure that traditional private credit fund structures lack. But the underlying structural properties illiquid loans without secondary market, valuation that depends on borrower performance rather than market price mean that a crisis in the underlying credit quality will test the tokenised structure in ways that tokenised Treasuries would never face.
The ‘speed mismatch‘ problem applies here: when tokenised private credit faces stress, the underlying loans cannot be liquidated quickly enough to meet redemption expectations created by on-chain transferability. This is not a reason not to tokenise private credit it is a reason to be precise about what tokenisation does and does not change about the underlying risk.
The Tier 4 Problem: Conceptual Attractiveness vs Structural Reality
Fine art and intellectual property are among the most frequently cited future RWA tokenisation opportunities and among the least ready for institutional-scale tokenisation. The appeal is understandable: these are illiquid assets where fractional digital ownership would theoretically democratise access. The structural problems are fundamental. Legal ownership of art is often disputed, jurisdiction-dependent, and does not cleanly transfer in digital form. Valuation is infrequent, subjective, and contested. The secondary market is a handful of auction events per year. Institutional demand at the scale needed to support a functioning tokenised market does not exist.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did US Treasuries tokenise first?
Because they possess every structural readiness factor simultaneously: clear legal ownership, the most liquid secondary market in the world, continuous transparent pricing, regulatory recognition in every major jurisdiction, and enormous institutional demand as the default cash management instrument. Most subsequent tokenisation categories have some but not all of these properties.
2. Why is private credit Tier 2 if it’s now the largest RWA category?
Market size and structural readiness are different measurements. Private credit scaled because of strong institutional demand for yield and the distribution advantage tokenisation provides. But the underlying loans are illiquid, valued by performance rather than market price, and cannot be liquidated quickly in stress structural limitations that tokenisation does not resolve.
3. What is the ‘speed mismatch’ problem in RWA tokenisation?
When tokenised assets that represent illiquid underlying holdings (private credit, real estate) face redemption pressure, the underlying assets cannot be liquidated at the speed that on-chain transferability implies. The token can move instantly; the underlying asset moves on the timescales of its underlying market.
4. What makes fine art and IP Tier 4 rather than Tier 2 or 3?
All five structural readiness factors are weak simultaneously: legal ownership is often disputed and jurisdiction-dependent, there is no active secondary market, valuation is infrequent and subjective, regulatory frameworks are absent or unclear, and institutional demand at the scale needed to support a liquid tokenised market does not exist.
Blockmaze and the Capital Formation Tier
The capital formation instruments Blockmaze is built for sit at the productive intersection of the readiness hierarchy. They are not the easiest to tokenise — US Treasuries and money market funds took Tier 1 because they had every readiness factor simultaneously. They are also not Tier 4 fine art and intellectual property, where structural readiness is absent. Private credit, infrastructure debt, and real estate development capital sit in Tier 2: strong institutional demand, genuine utility from blockchain infrastructure, and specific frictions — illiquid underlying, complex ownership structures — that structured capital formation addresses directly. Milestone-based capital release tied to verified project progress addresses the speed mismatch problem. Compliance-enforced co-investment structures address the ownership complexity. Proof of Reserve attestation addresses the valuation transparency requirement. Blockmaze’s infrastructure is built precisely for the category where demand is strongest and the right infrastructure has been most absent.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or legal advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with qualified professionals before making any investment or business decisions.