Real world asset tokenization is transforming how we think about ownership, liquidity, and value in traditional finance. By 2026, the asset tokenization market has moved beyond pilot programs into production-ready products, with major institutions like BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and JPMorgan launching tokenized funds. But beneath the hype lies a critical question for crypto investors: how do RWA tokens actually capture value?

This guide breaks down the tokenomics of real world asset tokenization, exploring the four distinct verticals where tokens serve different purposes, the legal barriers separating value capture from value accrual, and the practical framework for evaluating RWA token investments.

Key Takeaways

• RWA tokenization brings real-world assets like treasuries, real estate, and private credit onto blockchain infrastructure

• The RWA market reached $21.34B in distributed asset value by 2026, with projections of $2 trillion by 2030

• RWA tokens serve four distinct purposes: governance/coordination, access control, infrastructure utility, and economic capture

• Unlike DeFi, most RWA protocols face a legal moat between value capture (protocol revenue) and value accrual (token value)

• Asset originators, aggregators, chains, and bridges each require different token design approaches

• Evaluating RWA tokens requires understanding both protocol economics and regulatory constraints on token utility

What is RWA Tokenization?

Asset tokenization is the process of representing ownership rights to real-world assets as digital tokens on a blockchain. These tokenized assets can include U.S. Treasury bonds, real estate properties, commodities like gold, private credit instruments, carbon credits, and even intellectual property rights.

The core innovation of RWA tokenization lies in converting traditionally illiquid assets into divisible, programmable, and transferable digital units. A $10 million commercial property that once required a single wealthy buyer can now be fractionalized into 10,000 tokens, each representing $1,000 in ownership. These tokens can then trade on secondary markets, unlock instant settlement, and integrate with DeFi protocols for lending, borrowing, and yield generation.

Unlike purely crypto-native assets such as governance tokens or memecoins, tokenized assets maintain a direct claim on off-chain value. When you hold a tokenized Treasury bond, you have legal rights to the underlying bond's cash flows, backed by U.S. government credit. This connection to real-world legal infrastructure creates both opportunities and constraints that fundamentally shape how RWA tokens work.

Why Tokenize Real World Assets?

The promise of RWA tokenization extends beyond simple digitization. Several compelling advantages drive the rapid adoption of tokenized assets across traditional finance and crypto markets.

24/7 Global Liquidity: Traditional assets trade during limited market hours within specific jurisdictions. Tokenized assets enable continuous trading across global blockchain networks, removing temporal and geographical barriers to liquidity. An investor in Singapore can instantly purchase fractional ownership in U.S. commercial real estate at 3 AM local time.

Fractional Ownership: High-value assets become accessible to retail investors through tokenization. Instead of requiring millions in capital to invest in prime real estate or private credit funds, investors can participate with as little as $100 through fractional token ownership.

Reduced Intermediaries: Blockchain-based settlement eliminates many middlemen in traditional finance. Smart contracts automate custody, transfer, and distribution functions that typically require banks, brokers, and custodians. This reduces transaction costs and settlement times from days to minutes.

Enhanced Transparency: On-chain transaction history creates an immutable audit trail for tokenized assets. Asset performance metrics, ownership changes, and cash flow distributions become publicly verifiable, reducing information asymmetry between issuers and investors.

Composability with DeFi: Tokenized assets integrate seamlessly with decentralized finance protocols. Treasury tokens can serve as collateral for loans on Aave, tokenized real estate can provide liquidity for automated market makers, and private credit tokens can generate yield through lending protocols. This composability unlocks entirely new financial use cases impossible in traditional markets.

The real-world impact shows in the numbers. By early 2026, distributed asset value in RWA tokenization reached $21.34 billion, with Solana's RWA total value locked hitting a new all-time high of $1 billion. Industry projections from McKinsey estimate the tokenization market could reach $2 trillion by 2030, driven by the $130 trillion fixed income market available for on-chain migration.

The Four Layers of RWA Token Purpose

Understanding RWA tokenomics requires distinguishing between different types of tokens in the ecosystem. Unlike DeFi protocols where governance tokens often capture direct value through fee sharing or buybacks, RWA protocols face regulatory constraints that separate protocol economics from token economics.

The tokenomics framework for RWA breaks down into four distinct layers, each serving different functions within the value chain.

Governance and Coordination Layer

At the most basic level, many RWA tokens function primarily as governance mechanisms for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Token holders vote on critical protocol parameters: which asset types to support, what issuers to approve, how to allocate treasury funds, and what risk parameters to implement.

This governance role is particularly important for RWA protocols because they sit at the intersection of blockchain technology and traditional legal frameworks. Decisions about compliance, asset standards, and issuer due diligence require community coordination that extends beyond simple smart contract parameters.

Ondo Finance's ONDO token exemplifies this governance-focused approach. ONDO holders govern the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance, voting on which assets to list, interest rate adjustments, and treasury management. However, ONDO explicitly does not convey ownership rights in Ondo Finance Inc. or revenue rights from tokenized products like OUSG (short-duration Treasury tokens) or USDY (yield-bearing stablecoin). The token provides governance power but limited direct value accrual from protocol economics.

This separation reflects regulatory caution. Securities laws in most jurisdictions create significant legal risk for tokens that distribute profits from underlying assets or enterprise value. By restricting tokens to governance functions only, protocols reduce regulatory exposure but also limit direct economic incentives for token holders.

Access Control and Participation Gating

The second layer uses tokens as access keys to protocol participation. Token staking requirements create permissioned tiers for different types of users, with higher stakes unlocking greater privileges or reduced fees.

In this model, tokens act as collateral or reputation bonds. Asset originators might stake tokens to list their offerings on a platform, with the stake subject to slashing if they default or misrepresent asset quality. Liquidity providers might stake tokens to access reduced fees or priority access to high-yield opportunities. Validators or oracles might stake tokens to secure their position in the network.

Access control mechanisms create token demand without requiring direct revenue sharing. Users need to acquire and hold tokens to participate in the protocol, creating organic buying pressure that isn't tied to distributing cash flows from underlying assets.

Goldfinch and Maple Finance both implement versions of this model. Auditors and backers in these credit protocols stake tokens to signal asset quality and earn rewards based on loan performance. The staking requirement gates participation while creating token utility independent of direct profit distribution.

Utility in Infrastructure

The third layer applies primarily to layer-1 or layer-2 blockchains purpose-built for RWA applications. These infrastructure tokens serve traditional blockchain utility functions: paying for transaction gas fees, securing the network through proof-of-stake validation, and incentivizing ecosystem development.

Plume Network represents this infrastructure approach. As an L1 blockchain specifically designed for RWA tokenization, the PLUME token handles multiple utility functions across the ecosystem. Users pay PLUME for transaction fees, validators stake PLUME to secure the network and earn staking rewards, and the token supports liquidity provisioning and collateral throughout the ecosystem.

The PLUME token supply totals 10 billion tokens with a distribution heavily weighted toward community and ecosystem development (59%), compared to strategic investors (21%) and core contributors (20%). At token generation, only 20% entered circulation, with the majority allocated for community airdrops, ecosystem grants, and validator rewards.

Infrastructure tokens in RWA chains face different regulatory dynamics than application-layer tokens. Because they primarily secure network operations rather than distribute profits from specific assets, they more closely resemble utility tokens under existing regulatory frameworks. This provides greater design flexibility for value accrual mechanisms.

Other RWA-focused chains include Stellar for cross-border payments and tokenized securities, and XDC Network for trade finance applications. Each implements variations on infrastructure token utility tied to network operations rather than specific asset performance.

Economic Capture

The fourth and most restricted layer involves tokens that directly capture economic value from protocol operations. This includes buyback-and-burn mechanisms, direct fee distributions to token stakers, or share-like profit participation in protocol revenue.

Economic capture is where RWA tokenomics face the strongest regulatory headwinds. When tokens distribute profits from underlying assets or enterprise operations, they increasingly resemble securities under Howey Test analysis in the United States and similar frameworks internationally. Securities classification triggers registration requirements, investor protections, and trading restrictions that most crypto protocols are not structured to accommodate.

Despite these challenges, some limited economic capture mechanisms exist in RWA tokenomics. Protocol fee sharing from ancillary services (not tied to specific assets), treasury-funded buybacks using protocol-owned liquidity, and governance-approved distributions from surplus reserves can potentially provide economic benefits to token holders without crossing into securities territory.

The key distinction lies in where the value originates. If a token captures value from the protocol's business operations as an enterprise, it likely functions as an equity security. If it captures value from network effects, governance decisions about treasury deployment, or utility demand for network services, the regulatory pathway may be clearer.

The Four RWA Token Designs

The tokenomics landscape varies dramatically across different types of RWA protocols. Each vertical faces distinct economic models, regulatory pressures, and value capture opportunities that shape appropriate token design.

Asset Originators

Asset originators create and issue tokenized versions of real-world assets. These protocols establish relationships with asset holders in traditional finance, perform due diligence and underwriting, and mint tokenized representations that flow into crypto markets.

Examples: Goldfinch (credit), Maple Finance (institutional loans), Credix (emerging market credit)

Primary Token Purpose: Governance combined with access gating through staking requirements

Value Capture Opportunities: These protocols earn revenue through origination fees and interest rate spreads between what borrowers pay and what lenders receive. The protocol typically captures 1-3% of loan principal as origination fees plus 2-5% annual spreads on outstanding credit.

Value Accrual Challenges: Despite strong protocol revenue, most originator tokens face limited value accrual due to regulatory constraints. Distributing loan profits to token holders creates securities classification risk. Instead, tokens primarily enable governance over credit policies, collateral requirements, and issuer whitelists, with staking requirements for auditors and backers who underwrite loan quality.

Goldfinch's GFI token governs protocol parameters and gates participation in the Backer Pool, where users stake GFI to signal support for specific credit opportunities. The token captures network coordination value but doesn't directly distribute interest income from loans.

Aggregators and Asset Managers

Aggregators don't originate assets themselves but rather curate, package, and distribute tokenized assets from multiple sources. They function similarly to traditional asset managers, creating structured products and vaults that give investors diversified exposure to tokenized assets.

Examples: Ondo Finance (Treasuries and structured products), Centrifuge (asset-backed securities aggregation)

Primary Token Purpose: Governance over product creation, asset allocation, and risk parameters

Value Capture Opportunities: Aggregators earn management fees on assets under management (typically 0.15-1% annually) and potential performance fees on returns above benchmarks. They may also capture spreads between wholesale and retail pricing on tokenized assets.

Value Accrual Challenges: Similar to asset originators, aggregators face regulatory barriers to distributing fee revenue through tokens. Investment management fees flowing to token holders could trigger investment company registration requirements under securities law.

Ondo Finance's ONDO token governs the DAO but explicitly doesn't convey revenue rights from products like OUSG or USDY. Token value depends on governance scope and potential future decisions by the DAO rather than automatic fee sharing. This governance-only approach keeps regulatory exposure minimal while limiting immediate economic incentives for token holders.

Centrifuge takes a slightly different approach by enabling asset originators to create isolated pools for specific asset types, with CFG token holders governing which asset classes to support and how to allocate protocol incentives.

Blockchain Infrastructure (L1/L2)

Layer-1 and layer-2 blockchains optimized for RWA applications provide the foundational infrastructure for asset tokenization. These chains often implement specific features for compliance, privacy, and institutional requirements that general-purpose blockchains don't prioritize.

Examples: Plume Network (RWA-native L1), Stellar (cross-border tokenized assets), XDC Network (trade finance)

Primary Token Purpose: Network utility for gas fees, staking for validation, ecosystem liquidity

Value Capture Opportunities: Infrastructure chains capture value through transaction fees, SDK/API licensing to enterprises, and potentially MEV (maximal extractable value) from transaction ordering. As RWA activity increases on the chain, transaction volume drives fee revenue.

Value Accrual Viability: Infrastructure tokens face fewer regulatory barriers to value accrual because they primarily secure network operations rather than distribute profits from specific assets. Fee burning, staking rewards, and validator incentives can more safely implement value accrual mechanisms.

Plume Network's tokenomics demonstrate this infrastructure approach. The PLUME token handles gas fees for all transactions, with validators staking tokens to earn block rewards and transaction fees. As more RWA protocols build on Plume, increased activity drives token demand for gas and validator competition for staking rewards.

The infrastructure model benefits from network effects. More assets tokenized on the chain attract more liquidity providers, which attracts more protocols building RWA applications, which drives more asset tokenization. The infrastructure token sits at the center of this flywheel.

Bridges and Cross-Chain Infrastructure

Bridges enable tokenized assets to move between different blockchain networks, creating interoperability across fragmented liquidity pools. Cross-chain infrastructure might also include oracles providing off-chain data about asset values or compliance status.

Examples: LayerZero integrations for RWA movement, Wanchain RWA bridges, Chainlink price feeds for tokenized assets

Primary Token Purpose: Validator coordination, security bonding, fee payment for cross-chain messages

Value Capture Opportunities: Bridges capture value through per-transaction fees for asset transfers between chains and potentially through liquidity provision in bridge pools.

Value Accrual Reality: Bridge tokens typically have minimal value accrual because they're not directly linked to underlying assets. Instead, they function as coordination mechanisms for validators who secure cross-chain messages and stake tokens subject to slashing for malicious behavior.

The bridge vertical is the least developed in RWA tokenomics because most tokenized assets remain on a single chain where they were minted. As the market matures and liquidity fragments across multiple chains, bridge infrastructure will become more critical, but current adoption remains limited compared to other DeFi bridging activity.

Value Capture vs. Value Accrual

The most important concept for evaluating RWA token investments is the difference between value capture and value accrual. This distinction separates successful protocols from successful tokens.

Value Capture answers the question: Does the protocol retain economic value from its operations? This includes all revenue the protocol earns through fees, spreads, margins, or other business activities. Strong value capture indicates a sustainable business model with real demand for the protocol's services.

Asset originators capture value through origination fees and interest spreads. Aggregators capture value through management fees and asset margins. Infrastructure chains capture value through transaction fees. These revenue streams prove that the protocol provides genuine economic utility worth paying for.

Value Accrual answers a different question: Does the economic value captured by the protocol flow to token holders? This requires specific mechanisms like fee redistribution, token buybacks and burns, staking rewards, or governance distributions from protocol-owned treasuries.

In traditional DeFi, value capture and value accrual are often tightly coupled. Uniswap's fee switch (if enabled) would direct trading fees to UNI holders. Aave distributes protocol fees to AAVE stakers. MakerDAO's surplus buffer generates revenue for MKR buybacks. The protocol makes money, and token holders directly benefit.

In RWA, there's a legal moat between value capture and value accrual. Protocols may generate substantial revenue from origination fees or asset management, but distributing those profits to token holders triggers securities classification under most jurisdictions' frameworks. The protocol captures value, but tokens don't accrue value directly.

This creates a challenging dynamic for RWA token investors. A protocol like Ondo Finance may successfully grow assets under management and generate increasing fee revenue, demonstrating strong value capture. But if those fees don't flow to ONDO token holders, the token value depends on speculation about future governance decisions, ecosystem growth effects, or potential regulatory changes rather than direct cash flow rights.

Some protocols attempt hybrid approaches. Treasury-funded buybacks using accumulated governance reserves can provide indirect value accrual without directly distributing asset-linked profits. Staking rewards paid from treasury allocations rather than real-time fee sharing create token demand without profit distribution. Fee reductions for token stakers improve holder economics without transferring enterprise value.

Evaluating RWA Tokens

Given the complexity of RWA tokenomics, investors need a structured framework for evaluating potential investments beyond simple metrics like market cap or trading volume.

### Assess Protocol Economics First

Before examining token mechanics, understand the protocol's fundamental business model. Does it solve a real problem in traditional finance? What revenue does it generate, and from what sources? How does it compare to both traditional competitors and crypto alternatives?

Strong protocol economics are necessary but not sufficient for token value. A protocol can successfully tokenize billions in assets while its token captures minimal value if designed primarily for governance.

Map Token Utility to Value Drivers

Identify precisely what functions the token performs in the ecosystem. Is it purely governance, or does it gate access, secure infrastructure, or enable economic participation? Tokens with multiple utility functions create more diverse demand sources.

Infrastructure tokens generally offer clearer value accrual paths than application tokens due to lower regulatory risk. Gas fee burning and validator staking create direct mechanisms linking network activity to token economics.

Understand Regulatory Constraints

Research the legal structure and regulatory approach of the protocol. Where is the entity incorporated? What legal opinions or regulatory guidance have they obtained? How do they structure token utility to avoid securities classification?

Protocols operating under clear regulatory frameworks or with explicit regulatory approval face lower risk of enforcement action that could restrict token utility or trading.

Evaluate Competitive Positioning

RWA tokenization remains early but competitive. Multiple protocols target similar asset classes with different approaches. Assess the protocol's competitive advantages: existing institutional relationships, regulatory licenses, technical infrastructure, or liquidity depth.

First-mover advantage matters less than execution quality and regulatory positioning in RWA markets.

Consider Long-Term Governance Trajectory

For governance-focused tokens, token value depends on the scope and importance of governance decisions. Does the DAO control meaningful protocol parameters, substantial treasury assets, or strategic direction? Or is governance limited to minor parameter tweaks while core business decisions remain with the founding entity?

Governance value can expand over time as protocols progressively decentralize. Tokens with limited current utility might gain additional functions through governance votes or regulatory clarity.

Challenges and Risks in RWA Tokenization

Despite significant momentum, RWA tokenization faces substantial obstacles that create risks for both protocols and token holders.

Regulatory Uncertainty: Securities regulations remain the primary constraint on RWA token design. Different jurisdictions apply different frameworks, creating compliance complexity for protocols serving global users. Regulatory enforcement actions could restrict token trading or utility even for protocols attempting to comply.

Liquidity Fragmentation: Unlike DeFi where liquidity concentrates on major chains and protocols, RWA liquidity fragments across different asset classes, issuers, and platforms. A tokenized Treasury product from one issuer may not be fungible with a similar product from another issuer, limiting secondary market depth.

Legal Enforceability: Smart contracts can enforce on-chain logic, but tokenized assets ultimately depend on off-chain legal enforcement. If an asset issuer defaults or disputes ownership rights, token holders need recourse through traditional legal systems. The interaction between on-chain token ownership and off-chain legal rights remains untested at scale.

Oracle Dependencies: Asset values, compliance status, and cash flow distributions often require off-chain data brought on-chain through oracles. These oracles represent centralization points and potential failure modes if they provide incorrect information or become compromised.

Custody and Key Management: Institutional investors accustomed to professional custodians face operational challenges with self-custody of tokenized assets. Losing private keys means losing access to potentially millions in real-world asset value. Custodial solutions reduce these risks but reintroduce trusted intermediaries.

Market Infrastructure Gaps: Industry research points out that market infrastructure remains fragmented, with liquidity often siloed and secondary markets reliant on issuer-led redemption rather than open market trading. Mature RWA markets will require standardized protocols, interoperable infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks that don't yet fully exist.

Real Project Case Studies

Examining specific protocols illustrates how different design choices create distinct token economics profiles.

Ondo Finance: Governance-Only Approach

Ondo Finance has emerged as one of the largest RWA protocols, offering tokenized Treasury products (OUSG) and yield-bearing stablecoins (USDY) to both institutional and accredited retail investors. By early 2026, Ondo managed substantial assets under management with strong product-market fit.

The ONDO token serves exclusively governance functions. Token holders govern the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance protocol, voting on asset listings, interest rates, and treasury allocations. However, ONDO explicitly provides no ownership rights in Ondo Finance Inc. and no revenue rights from product fees.

This design reflects maximum regulatory caution. By separating token economics from enterprise economics, Ondo reduces securities classification risk. Token value depends on governance importance and ecosystem network effects rather than direct profit participation.

The tradeoff is clear. ONDO investors bet on governance value appreciation and potential future utility expansion rather than cash flow rights. If the DAO accumulates substantial treasury assets or governance scope expands to include protocol fee deployment, token value could increase. But there's no automatic mechanism linking Ondo's business success to ONDO token value.

Plume Network: Infrastructure Utility

Plume Network takes the opposite approach by building RWA-specific blockchain infrastructure where tokens serve essential utility functions. As an L1 chain purpose-built for RWA tokenization, PLUME tokens pay for every transaction on the network.

The token distribution dedicates 59% to community and ecosystem development, including validator rewards. This heavy community allocation incentivizes network effects as more validators stake PLUME, more developers build RWA applications, and more assets tokenize on the chain.

PLUME's value accrual connects directly to network activity. More RWA transactions mean more gas fees paid in PLUME. More validators competing for block rewards increases staking demand. More applications integrating PLUME for liquidity provisioning creates additional utility.

The infrastructure model faces different risks than application protocols. Success depends on attracting sufficient RWA activity to the chain rather than any single asset class or product. If RWA activity concentrates on other chains like Ethereum or Solana, PLUME's utility value remains limited regardless of token design.

Centrifuge: Asset Aggregation with Governance

Centrifuge enables real-world asset originators to bring structured credit on-chain through isolated liquidity pools. The protocol has facilitated hundreds of millions in asset tokenization across categories like real estate, invoices, and consumer credit.

The CFG token governs which asset classes to support and how to allocate protocol rewards across different pools. This creates indirect value accrual through governance influence over ecosystem growth rather than direct fee sharing.

Token holders essentially vote on capital allocation within the Centrifuge ecosystem. Supporting high-growth asset classes that attract more investors increases network effects that benefit the entire protocol. This governance value is real but less directly quantifiable than fee redistribution.

The Future of RWA Tokenomics

The trajectory of RWA tokenization over the next several years will significantly impact how tokens evolve within the ecosystem.

Regulatory Clarity: The most important development would be clear regulatory frameworks specifically addressing tokenized assets and associated tokens. If regulators create safe harbors for utility tokens that don't distribute asset-linked profits, protocols could implement more direct value accrual mechanisms.

Standardization: Industry-wide standards for tokenized asset formats, compliance checks, and cross-protocol interoperability would dramatically improve liquidity and composability. Standardization also enables more liquid secondary markets that reduce dependence on issuer redemptions.

Traditional Finance Integration: As major financial institutions continue launching tokenized products, the question of whether they adopt crypto-native tokens or create closed permissioned systems will shape the market. Institutional adoption of decentralized protocols would validate token models, while competing proprietary systems could fragment liquidity.

Hybrid Models: Protocols may develop increasingly sophisticated token designs that provide economic exposure to protocol success without distributing asset-linked profits. Options include governance over protocol-owned liquidity deployment, progressive fee reductions for long-term stakers, or synthetic exposure to protocol growth metrics.

Infrastructure Consolidation: Just as Ethereum became the dominant DeFi settlement layer, a few chains may emerge as primary RWA infrastructure. Tokens of these chains would benefit from network effects, while asset-specific application tokens might face increasing pressure.

The fundamental tension between value capture and value accrual will persist until either regulatory frameworks explicitly accommodate profit-sharing tokens or protocols develop alternative value accrual mechanisms that don't trigger securities classification.

Conclusion

Real world asset tokenization represents one of the most significant opportunities for blockchain technology to create genuine value by improving traditional finance infrastructure. The market has progressed rapidly from pilot projects to production systems managing billions in assets, with major institutions validating the model.

For investors evaluating RWA tokens, the critical insight is understanding the separation between protocol success and token value. Strong protocols with substantial value capture don't automatically create valuable tokens if legal constraints prevent value accrual mechanisms. Infrastructure tokens generally offer clearer value accrual paths than application tokens, while governance tokens depend on the scope and importance of DAO decisions.

The most successful RWA token investments will likely come from protocols that combine strong protocol economics with clever token design that creates genuine utility within regulatory constraints, or from infrastructure plays that benefit from network effects as RWA adoption scales.

As regulatory frameworks mature and market infrastructure improves, the RWA tokenomics landscape will continue evolving. Protocols that navigate the legal moat between value capture and value accrual while building sustainable businesses will define the next generation of crypto-enabled financial infrastructure.