In this round of the dual-line game of “real assets on-chain” and “compliance pathways flowing back,” on one end is the tokenized commodity market completely dominated by gold, and on the other end, Grayscale continues to knock on the door of U.S. regulators with its HYPE spot ETF (code GHYP): as of May 7, 2026, the on-chain tokenized gold scale is about 5 billion dollars, while the tokenized silver during the same period is only about 28.1 million dollars, and the tokenized iShares Gold Trust is about 14.1 million dollars. These figures come from a single data source which itself has limitations in scope and coverage, but the significant gap still speaks volumes — a16z crypto referred to the current tokenized commodity landscape as “almost entirely gold” in a public statement in late May, while attempts at tokenizing oil, crops, energy, computing power, and other varieties remain sporadic and of very low scale. In parallel, Bloomberg analyst James Seyffart revealed that Grayscale has submitted a third revised S-1 filing for GHYP to the SEC, and as of May 23, this crypto asset-related spot ETF is still awaiting a ruling on its fate. One pathway turns traditional safe-haven asset gold into on-chain collateral and a value storage place, while another repackages BTC and ETH exposure that originally requires acquiring through exchanges and on-chain accounts into brokerages and retirement accounts. The two approaches create a competitive and complementary dynamic compared to the previous reliance mainly on fiat-pegged tokens and centralized exchange deposit paths: gold RWA strengthens an on-chain “low volatility, anti-inflation” funding pool, while spot ETFs like GHYP, if approved, may channel more traditional funds directly into high-volatility BTC and ETH, thus redefining the liquidity landscape between risk aversion and risk preference.

Gold Dominates: The Specialty Reality of Tokenized Goods

If we view “tokenized goods” as an asset pool, what we see currently is almost entirely gold. For instance, according to data as of May 7, 2026, from a single source, the on-chain tokenized gold scale is about 5 billion dollars, while silver is only about 28.1 million dollars, and the tokenized iShares Gold Trust is about 14.1 million dollars. While data from a single source may have limitations in coverage and classification, the disparity in magnitude is already enough to illustrate the issue: a16z crypto explicitly stated in late May that the current tokenized commodity market is “almost entirely gold,” while other targets such as oil, crops, energy, and computing power remain in early stages with extremely low market shares.

Why has gold been able to grow large in RWA and tokenized goods and make “almost all gold” a reality? On one hand, in the traditional financial system, gold has long been viewed as a safe-haven asset, strongly linked to inflation expectations and geopolitical risks, creating a mature system of physical custody, trusts, and ETF products, providing ready-made legal and custodial templates for “on-chain.” On the other hand, most on-chain gold tokens adopt a one-to-one physical or trust-backed model, making it easier for traditional institutions and DeFi protocols to view them as high-quality collateral or value-preserving assets. Once gold RWA becomes mainstream on-chain, the fund structure changes accordingly: more and more institutions and high-net-worth funds choose to remain in asset layers closer to “on-chain treasury bonds / gold bars” in terms of volatility and returns rather than moving towards the high volatility of BTC and ETH. This high proportion of “safe-haven collateral” is reshaping the entire crypto system's risk appetite curve and leverage base, with future changes in the proportion of gold-type collateral in DeFi directly indicating whether on-chain funding styles trend conservative or aggressive.

Abandoned Oil and Crops: The Cold Start of On-Chain Ambitions

The growth of gold on-chain significantly arises because the tokenization of other commodities has yet to truly commence. Research briefs indicate that, apart from gold and a small amount of silver and gold ETFs, the tokenization of oil, crops, energy, computing power, and other targets remains in early experimental stages with notably low market shares, presenting a highly asymmetrical structure in the entire “commodity on-chain” narrative: gold dominates while other varieties lie stranded on the shore like cargo ships, yet to sail into the main liquidity channel on-chain.

The underlying constraints primarily stem from compliance and delivery logic. Physical delivery and storage of bulk commodities are inherently complex; from oil tanks, warehouse receipts to port inventories, any problem at any link can sever the legal ownership between on-chain tokens and physical goods. Achieving “one token corresponds to one unit of physical goods” is virtually a meticulous legal engineering endeavor across different jurisdictions. In terms of price, gold has a relatively unified global pricing benchmark, while most non-gold commodity futures prices are torn apart by regional basis and transportation costs, requiring much higher accuracy and anti-manipulation capabilities from price oracles and sources than gold. On a more realistic level is the participant structure: the key players in traditional energy and agricultural markets are traders and industrial enterprises who are accustomed to hedging inventory and orders among bank credit, OTC forwards, and local futures markets. Their motivation to invest in on-chain infrastructure upgrades is limited, and there is a lack of consensus on viewing on-chain as a core pricing and financing venue.

The result is that on-chain RWA collateral is almost monopolized by gold, rendering the commodity dimension extremely singular. For professional funds with clear views on macro and commodities, this means they find it challenging to construct a “trifecta of inflation + energy prices + industrial cycles” on-chain: they can use gold tokens to hedge a portion of nominal inflation and geopolitical risks, but cannot hedge energy shocks and supply cycles with oil, grain, or electricity-related assets, forcing them to continue completing this part of the trade structure in traditional OTC or futures markets. For high-volatility assets like BTC and ETH, this structure yields two consequences: on the one hand, on-chain hedging and collateral demands are forced to concentrate on gold and a few interest-rate-related assets, limiting the space for disaggregating commodity risks and repackaging them into structured products; on the other hand, the absence of a diverse commodity absorption pool makes macro variables such as inflation expectations and energy price fluctuations more likely to directly spill over into the risk premiums of BTC and ETH, allowing them to continue acting as “residual absorbers of all macro sentiment,” rather than a precisely disaggregated standard asset factor that professional funds can hedge and spread on-chain.

Grayscale Stays at the Table: Third Revision of HYPE Spot ETF

While on-chain commodity assets are still in the “gold dominates” phase, in the off-chain compliance race, Grayscale chooses to continue doubling down. Bloomberg analyst James Seyffart disclosed that Grayscale has submitted the third revised S-1 registration application for its HYPE spot ETF (code GHYP) to the SEC, and as of May 23, 2026, the regulators have yet to provide a public conclusion to approve or deny it. This means that at the bargaining table for U.S. spot crypto ETFs, Grayscale has not walked away due to delays in approval; rather, it continuously “calibrates” with the regulators through multiple revisions to probe acceptable compliance boundaries.

For macro funds, the signal of the continuous revision of S-1 does not relate to when GHYP will be approved, but rather that “the path of spot crypto ETFs is still alive”: large U.S. digital asset management companies are still willing to expend time costs and legal resources to pursue this pathway, indicating that traditional funding channels such as brokerage accounts and retirement accounts may continue to add tools for gaining crypto exposure, albeit with highly uncertain timing. Once such ETF channels increase, the “compliance beta” attribute of BTC and ETH will be magnified, and some funds that originally required traversing OTC fiat settlements or depended on USD-denominated on-chain assets for entry may prefer to allocate primary assets through ETFs, thus marginally redirecting some of the risk appetite that should enter long-tail tokens. The result is that core assets may gain clearer funding support within compliance frameworks, while high-risk altcoins face dual pressures from regulatory scrutiny and relative valuation, making it easier for pricing power to concentrate on BTC and ETH as “risk assets acceptable to regulation” in an environment with limited new funds and channels concentrated more on ETFs.

Gold RWA Colliding with Crypto ETFs: Funds Swaying Between Two Pathways

On one side are gold and other RWA on-chain regarded as low-volatility collateral and safe-haven positions; on the other are the spot ETFs offered by brokerages providing “compliance beta” for traditional accounts. According to a single data source, as of May 7, 2026, the on-chain tokenized gold scale is about 5 billion dollars, although this figure may not fully encompass all protocols, it is already substantial enough to accommodate some institutions and high-net-worth funds viewing it as a “replacement for on-chain treasury bonds”: improving health in decentralized lending, redeemable for dollar assets during volatility, and serving as a buffer for self-hedging within the crypto system. Alongside this are the BTC and ETH spots or related ETFs that can be bought through brokerages and retirement accounts, allowing issuers like Grayscale to “move” crypto exposure into compliant statements without requiring investors to open exchange accounts or hold on-chain USD tokens to bet on leading tokens.

In the risk preference cycle, the same macro fund may repeatedly switch between these two pathways and BTC and ETH spots: during periods of geopolitical tensions, rising inflation expectations, or tighter regulatory sentiment, funds that originally leveraged through ETFs or centralized exchanges may choose to increase their gold RWA holdings on-chain while reducing high beta assets, viewing them as “risk brakes” in their portfolios; conversely, when liquidity loosens and approval expectations improve, the hedged gold collateral gradually gets released, on-chain collateral returns to buy orders, and brokers amplify the efforts to increase BTC and ETH through spot ETFs, with the risk premium yielding to the risk premium. Under this structure, the previously singular reliance on USD-pegged tokens and centralized exchange deposit pathways is broken down into multiple tracks: “on-chain RWA—USD-pegged tokens—spot ETFs—derivatives.” Some traditional funds might prefer to hold compliant ETFs long-term, giving up direct operational space on-chain, while others are more adept at executing paired trades between on-chain gold and BTC and ETH, such as hedging spot long volatility with gold RWA or taking a “long gold, short BTC/ETH” relative value position when risk premiums are excessively high. Ultimately, which pathway prevails will depend on the level of macro uncertainty and the differentiated regulatory attitudes towards these two asset types.

From Gold Domination to Multi-Asset On-Chain: Where to Look Next

Bringing the line back to the present: as of May 7, 2026, a single data source indicates that the on-chain tokenized gold scale is about 5 billion dollars, while silver is only about 28.1 million dollars, and the tokenized iShares Gold Trust is about 14.1 million dollars. This set of figures has inherent uncertainties in coverage and statistical methods, only indicating one direction — the tokenized goods are almost entirely occupied by gold, with other categories remaining as leftovers; meanwhile, the submission of the third version S-1 for the HYPE spot ETF (GHYP) by Grayscale suggests that traditional institutions are still increasing their investment in “brokerage accounts buying crypto” channels, but the results and timelines remain completely unknown, leading to a fund structure characterized by a gold single core, conservative pathways, and fluctuating expectations. Going forward, crypto participants need to keep an eye on two lines: one on-chain, whether the tokenization of non-gold commodities will experience significant magnification, and whether oil, agricultural products, energy, computing power, and other categories can transform from “samples” into an “asset pool”; the other off-chain, whether the regulatory feedback on spot ETFs like GHYP will change the market's perception of compliance crypto exposure and reallocate the weight between “direct holding” and “ETF holdings.” For traders, the question is not just which target to buy but how to cross-allocate and hedge between gold RWA, BTC/ETH, and various ETFs: the macro interest rate path, inflation expectations, and the tightness of regulatory attitudes will determine the rhythm of risk preference switching between safe-haven gold and high-volatility tokens, also determining the relative attractiveness of on-chain assets and off-chain products within the same cycle.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。