Tokenise First, Figure It Out Later: The RWA Dilemma

Editorial overview of the Drofa Comms × RWA WEEK report from RWA SUMMIT Singapore 2026, based on discussions at RWA Summit Singapore on 9 October 2026.

The report’s starting point is deliberately more demanding than the usual tokenisation narrative. Putting an asset on-chain may make a transfer technically fast, but it does not by itself create a market, establish a dependable price, or determine what an investor can enforce when something goes wrong. The real test begins after issuance: can a holder sell, pledge or transfer the asset within financial arrangements that counterparties, regulators and customers can use?

Liquidity starts after issuance

That distinction matters because tokenisation can easily be mistaken for liquidity. The report argues that a token needs identifiable buyers beyond an initial issue, credible price discovery, a venue or mechanism for resale, and realistic exit routes. Without these conditions, a tokenised asset can exist without being readily tradeable. Secondary markets are not a cosmetic next step; they help establish market-based pricing, give investors an option to exit and may make collateral easier to assess when positions need to be liquidated.

The DBS case study supplies a useful qualification to headline figures. DBS had an established crypto-linked investment product, eligible clients and planned distribution through ADDX, DigiFT and HydraX before announcing plans to tokenise structured notes. The report notes more than US$1 billion in trading volume in the first half of 2025, but specifies that this was the combined volume of crypto-linked structured notes and crypto options—not secondary-market trading volume in tokenised notes. The point is not that distribution guarantees a liquid market. Rather, an issuer with a product history, a customer base and distribution partners starts from a stronger position than one trying to create all three at once.

Technology is only one part of that equation. The report suggests that open-source capabilities and token issuance alone are unlikely to sustain a business. For issuers and infrastructure providers, the commercial questions remain whether demand is repeatable, whether fees can support operations and whether a service has actual customer traction. The report’s practical checklist is straightforward: assess demand, secondary trading, price discovery, exit mechanisms and legal clarity before presenting an asset as liquid.

Ownership and compliance still matter

Legal enforceability is the report’s second major concern. A blockchain record does not automatically settle ownership of the underlying asset, creditor claims, redemption obligations or the duties of an issuer, lender or intermediary. The report frames this in practical terms: institutions accepting a tokenised security as collateral must still understand who has legal rights to the underlying asset and how recovery would work if a borrower defaulted. Due diligence, risk management, investor eligibility and redemption responsibilities do not disappear merely because an asset is represented on-chain.

Cross-border use adds another layer. A token may travel between networks and jurisdictions quickly, while the applicable financial rules remain national and often different. A product issued in Singapore, for example, may face separate eligibility, disclosure, custody and risk-management requirements when it reaches another market. The report therefore treats compliance controls as part of the product design, rather than a disclaimer placed beside a technically unrestricted transfer.

Measuring institutional benefits

Where the report finds the most tangible promise is institutional usability. Faster, around-the-clock movement of money and collateral can matter when it reduces balances that firms must pre-fund or lets collateral reach a counterparty when needed. One panel example described stablecoin-enabled transfers reducing the need to keep large balances with every payment partner; another concerned the use of tokenised money-market-fund shares for institutional transfers outside conventional banking hours. Tokenised US Treasuries used as collateral were also discussed as a way to help hedge funds manage positions without waiting through a normal settlement cycle.

These examples are not a blanket claim that faster settlement is automatically valuable. The report’s standard is measurable benefit: less capital tied up in advance, more mobile collateral, reliable customer outcomes and clear responsibility when a payment or redemption fails. Consumer-facing applications, including payment cards connected to tokenised holdings, similarly depend on lending arrangements, safeguards against losses and protections that users can understand.

A more useful scorecard for 2027

For 2027, the report proposes a more useful scorecard than tokenised assets under management: secondary-market activity, institutional capital efficiency, legal certainty and commercial sustainability. Taken together, those measures shift attention from how many assets have been tokenised to whether they can be traded, redeemed and used as collateral through viable financial services.

Source: Drofa Comms × RWA WEEK — RWA SUMMIT Singapore 2026 report.

Download the full report