In recent years, asset tokenization has once again become a focal point of discussion in the financial sector: traditional assets are represented in the form of "tokens" through blockchain, promising higher divisibility, programmability, and the possibility of round-the-clock trading. Recently, several large market participants and exchanges have successively promoted related pilot projects, indicating a shift from industry interest to institutional implementation.
The push from exchanges and institutions is one of the most significant trends currently. Nasdaq recently submitted a rule filing to regulators, seeking to allow the trading of securities in token form on its main board. This move is seen as an important signal of traditional exchanges attempting to connect on-chain settlement with existing market mechanisms; at the same time, large asset management companies are exploring feasible paths for "tokenizing" funds and ETFs. If regulatory approval is obtained, the integration at the exchange level will significantly reduce friction between tokenized assets and existing capital markets.
The pilot projects for asset classes are showing a trend of diversification. "Physical/Equity" assets, represented by real estate and fund shares, are the main battleground for institutions testing the waters: consulting firms and asset managers are working on the technical and legal design of divisible real estate tokens, management fees, and income certificates, intending to achieve lower trading thresholds and higher liquidity through blockchain. Meanwhile, tokenized products in the money market have already been implemented on some platforms, providing an initial channel for institutions to manage short-term cash on-chain.
Regulatory attitudes are showing divergence and evolution across different jurisdictions. U.S. regulators have clearly warned that if tokenized products possess securities attributes, they will still be subject to existing securities laws, emphasizing that the technological form cannot change the substantive attributes of the asset; at the same time, rule-making and sandbox-style regulation are being advanced to seek a balance between protecting investors and maintaining market order. Many regions in Eurasia are also promoting the improvement of compliance frameworks, but differences in rules regarding custody responsibilities, bankruptcy priority, and disclosure obligations among countries remain practical obstacles to cross-border tokenization applications.
At the technical and infrastructure level, the "legal wrapper" that maps off-chain legal relationships to on-chain tokens is key to implementation. In practice, tokens often need to correspond legal ownership rights with on-chain tokens through trusts, custodial holdings, or special purpose entities; any misalignment in this connection can amplify legal disputes in cases of liquidation or bankruptcy. Additionally, settlement speed, custody security, and compliant KYC/AML processes also determine whether institutions can move assets on-chain and offer them externally.
Market liquidity and pricing mechanisms are still in the formation stage. Tokenization promises "divided ownership and increased liquidity," but actual liquidity depends on the depth of trading infrastructure and the breadth of market participants. If trading cannot connect with a wide range of market makers and clearing institutions on closed platforms or at the chain level, the theoretical liquidity may not translate into real buying and selling depth. Exchanges and custodians are negotiating on the technical and regulatory levels regarding interfaces, settlement finality, and compliance, aiming to incorporate tokenized trading into the existing market's risk management system.
The business motivations of industry participants vary: traditional asset managers see tokenization as a way to reduce issuance and distribution costs and to tap into small investors; financial infrastructure providers and exchanges hope to extend new settlement services and revenue sources; while technology vendors focus on scalability, interoperability, and the embedding of compliance tools. If large institutions' pilot projects gain dual recognition from regulators and the market, they will become key catalysts for pushing tokenization from "testing grounds" to "normalization."
Risks and obstacles cannot be ignored: unclear legal priorities, incomplete clarification of bankruptcy disposal paths, and high costs of custody and compliance across chains and jurisdictions may suppress the widespread explosion of tokenization in the short term. Regulatory tightening or unfavorable judicial precedents may lead market participants to recalibrate between compliance costs and innovation speed. Prudent compliance design and gradual integration with traditional markets remain the preferred path for most projects.
Conclusion:
Asset tokenization is moving from concept to institutional pilot projects, driven by exchanges, asset management, and technology suppliers, along with regulatory attempts to construct a rule framework, collectively advancing this process. However, to achieve true large-scale implementation, not only is technological maturity required, but also comprehensive support from legal, custody, and market rules. Regulatory documents, exchange approvals, and large institutions' real-world testing within the next 12 to 36 months will determine whether tokenization can transition from "small-scale innovation" to "financial market infrastructure."
Related: Ethena exits Hyperliquid USDH stablecoin bidding, clearing the way for Native Markets
Original article: “Blockchain Asset Tokenization Moves Toward the Mainstream: Opportunities, Compliance, and Market Adoption”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
