Mr. Jack Nguyen, Founder and Managing Partner of BlockBase Ventures
The tokenization of real-world assets should not be viewed merely as a new “digital asset class” but rather as financial infrastructure that enables markets to operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and scalability.
In Vietnam, capital demand for traditional assets such as real estate, infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, and private credit is substantial, while existing capital channels remain limited, particularly for mid-sized and long-term projects. In this context, tokenization, if implemented properly, can help address capital fragmentation and expand access to investors, not only domestically but also internationally. Sectors considered most suitable for early-stage tokenization include income-generating real estate such as industrial parks, logistics, and infrastructure; private credit and supply chain finance, where capital demand is high but efficient funding channels are lacking; and green finance and energy infrastructure, aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards and the preferences of international investors.
However, it must be emphasized that tokens do not create new value on their own. They are merely tools for packaging, standardizing, and distributing ownership rights more efficiently. If the underlying assets are of poor quality, the legal framework is unclear, or cash flows are unsustainable, tokenization will not improve value and may even accelerate the spread of risk.
In my view, safe tokenization must prioritize legal standards and asset structuring, rather than technology alone.
First, the underlying assets need to be placed within a transparent legal structure, such as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) - a company established specifically to hold and manage the assets - or licensed trust funds or investment funds. In such cases, tokens represent lawful ownership rights or economic benefits, rather than merely conceptual digital assets.
Second, it is essential to clearly distinguish that tokenization is the digitization of ownership rights and does not equate to unrestricted trading on unregulated secondary markets. The transfer of tokens must still comply with regulations on qualified investor classification, identity verification, anti-money laundering, transaction limits, and disclosure obligations, similar to the standards of traditional financial markets.
Third, blockchain should be used as a record-keeping and reconciliation layer to enhance transparency and reduce operational risk; it cannot replace the role of the law, regulators, or financial intermediaries.
Tokenization can create new opportunities, but it also carries risks related to artificial liquidity and financial leverage. This is a very real concern, especially for developing markets like Vietnam. Tokenization may create a perception of “high liquidity” but, in reality, liquidity is only sustainable when supported by real cash flows and genuine demand.
For investment funds, a tokenization approach must be grounded in traditional risk management thinking. The focus should remain on assessing assets based on cash flows, resilience across cycles, and downside scenarios; tightly controlling financial leverage, especially for assets that are already highly cyclical; and maintaining transparency with investors regarding holding periods, exit possibilities, and liquidity-related risks. For these reasons, over the next three to five years, I do not expect tokenization to experience a widespread boom. Instead, it is likely to develop in a selective and controlled manner, closely tied to regulatory sandboxes and reputable financial institutions.
Mr. Richard D. McClellan, Vice Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Vietnam International Financial Center in Da Nang
Asset tokenization is not a standalone product, but a supporting capability within a broader financial ecosystem. For Da Nang, the value of tokenization lies in its development orientation towards innovation, digital finance, and controlled pilot mechanisms.
If implemented properly, tokenization can improve the efficiency of asset issuance, enhance transparency, and improve liquidity in secondary markets. However, this is only feasible when it is embedded within a credible legal framework, supervisory regime, and market infrastructure. The real opportunity is not in branding Da Nang as a “token hub” but in positioning the city as a place to responsibly pilot new financial models that can later be scaled nationwide if successful.
As to whether asset tokenization can become a strategic competitive advantage for Vietnam’s International Financial Center (IFC), the answer is “yes” but only in a highly selective manner. Tokenization itself is not a competitive advantage; institutional trust is the decisive factor. Tokenization can only differentiate Vietnam if it is integrated early into an IFC framework grounded in clear rules, with transparent principles for investor protection, property rights, and dispute resolution mechanisms. If done well, tokenization can complement traditional finance rather than compete with or replace it. Conversely, if rolled out indiscriminately or without adequate oversight, it risks being perceived as speculative activity rather than a long-term strategy. In this context, the sequencing of implementation matters more than the technology itself.
At the current stage, I believe Vietnam’s priority in asset tokenization should be controlled experimentation - narrow in scope, closely supervised, and with clearly-defined exit criteria. The objective is not speed, but trust: trust from regulators, investors, and international partners that innovation is being pursued cautiously and responsibly.
Within this broader picture, the role of the State should be to “enable with discipline.” This requires establishing clear rules of the game, enforcing them consistently, and allowing the market to innovate within those boundaries. Overly permissive mechanisms can erode trust, while excessively tight regulations may cause capital and innovation to migrate elsewhere. The IFC model is designed precisely to find the balance between these two extremes.
From my experience advising policymakers in many emerging economies, the most important lesson is that tokenization should not be viewed as a shortcut to capital mobilization. Markets allocate trust and capital based on credibility and institutional foundations, not on short-lived novelty. Countries that succeed are those that know how to link technological innovation with a strong legal system, effective supervision, and international standards, even if that means accepting slower progress in the early stages.
Mr. Nguyen Minh Tuan, Head of the Vietnam Digital Asset Investors Community (VIDA)
First, it is important to correctly understand the nature of real-world asset tokenization. At its core, tokenization is the certification of participation or ownership rights in an asset by breaking that asset into smaller units. A familiar example already exists in traditional finance: when investors participate in equity funds, they do not directly hold shares but instead own fund certificates - a form of tokenization that has existed for decades. In this sense, tokenization is essentially the standardization and fragmentation of investment rights, allowing more investors to participate with smaller capital amounts.
What makes tokenization different today is blockchain technology, which enables this process to be faster, cheaper, more efficient, and scalable. Thanks to blockchain, tokenization is no longer limited to equities or corporate bonds, but can be extended to government bonds, real estate, and other real-world assets. Blockchain allows ownership rights to be flexibly divided while supporting transparent, tamper-resistant tracking and verification of asset information. This creates an important opportunity for Vietnam’s financial market to deepen, diversify, and reach a broader investor base.
However, these opportunities come with significant risks and challenges, particularly on the legal side. When assets are fragmented and ownership rights are represented by tokens, critical questions arise: how legal ownership is established, how ownership is transferred, and who is responsible for protecting investors’ interests. A useful comparison is the fund certificate model, where investors own certificates while fund management companies hold the underlying assets. These two layers are clearly separated and protected by law, supported by custodian and supervisory banks that oversee assets and cash flows. Real-world asset tokenization requires a similar legal structure to clearly distinguish between token ownership and ownership of the underlying asset, and to safeguard the rights of token holders.
Globally, real-world asset tokenization is developing rapidly. Blockchain allows assets to be fragmented while remaining transparently controlled on decentralized systems where data is nearly immutable. The growing volume of tokenized assets traded worldwide shows that tokenization is no longer just a technological trend and is becoming a structural component of modern financial markets.
In Vietnam, over the next three years, the development potential for real-world asset tokenization is quite clear. On the legal front, Vietnam has begun to make initial progress, while on the technology side, national-level blockchain platforms are being developed. With appropriate regulatory and supervisory mechanisms, Vietnam can pilot and gradually introduce tokenized asset trading in the years to come.
A key concern for investors is whether tokenization increases the risk of fraud. In reality, investment risk always exists, especially when token ownership and ownership of the underlying asset are separate layers. Without strict oversight, tokens may be issued without being properly backed by real assets. In traditional finance, this risk is mitigated through custodian and supervisory banks that ensure assets and cash flows are properly managed. Tokenized real-world assets require similar custodial and supervisory mechanisms to confirm that assets are securely held and cash flows are properly controlled. Without these safeguards, investor risk is extremely high.
Compared with traditional markets such as land, equities, or bonds, tokenization offers several notable differences. Beyond fragmenting physical assets, blockchain also enables the tokenization of intangible assets such as artworks, intellectual property, and other rights. Tokenized markets operate online, run 24/7, and have lower transaction costs, improving efficiency and liquidity. At the same time, this expanded scope places higher demands on regulation and supervision.
One of Vietnam’s biggest challenges today is that public understanding of tokenization and digital assets remains limited. It is essential to emphasize that financial investment always involves risk and the possibility of capital loss. Therefore, the most important investment every investor must make is an investment in knowledge.
VIDA was established on January 15 to create a platform for connection, knowledge sharing, and the standardization of investor behavior as the market prepares for formal operation. It focuses on three core segments: decentralized finance (DeFi), tokenized real-world assets, and stablecoins.
Ultimately, investors need to clearly understand digital assets, investment products, and the nature of the transactions they participate in. Similar to the stock market, investors who understand businesses and select the right assets during economic growth cycles can benefit. Conversely, treating investment as gambling or acting without sufficient knowledge almost inevitably leads to losses. Strengthening investor education, connecting with international experience, and building a knowledgeable investment community are therefore critical foundations for the sustainable development of Vietnam’s digital asset market and broader financial system.
Mr. Jeffrey Tchui, Executive Director of Web3 Harbour (Hong Kong (China))
Asset tokenization can bring multiple opportunities to Vietnam’s financial market.
First, it can expand access to high-value assets. Tokenizing real estate, infrastructure, or private credit allows investment value to be fractionalized, thereby broadening participation. This is broadly consistent with pilot models I have supported across the Asia-Pacific region, where policymakers place high value on platforms with stable transaction fees, transparent governance, and innovation that does not cause disruption or create conditions for speculation or market manipulation.
Second, tokenization can help create liquidity for structurally-illiquid sectors. Real estate and the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) sector in Vietnam are consistently “capital-hungry” yet suffer from structural illiquidity. Tokenization can open the door to compliant secondary markets that are regulator-friendly.
Third, it can attract foreign capital through trusted infrastructure. Vietnam’s public sector has repeatedly emphasized the need to build highly-reliable financial services infrastructure. A public network with enterprise-grade governance can meet the expectations of institutional investors while still encouraging open innovation at International Financial Centers.
Fourth, tokenization can enhance operational efficiency and market transparency. Hedera’s consensus services and token services, which are compliant with OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) requirements from the US, enable real-time auditing and immutable data storage. These features align well with the Vietnamese regulator’s approach to supervising tokenized markets without increasing systemic risk.
Fifth, tokenization can open new capital-raising channels for SMEs and green / ESG (environmental, social, and governance) projects. I consistently emphasize the role of tokenization in supporting Vietnam’s sustainable development goals and SME financing needs.
However, it is important to note that in an environment where investor trust remains fragile, asset tokenization can amplify market psychology risks, especially in a market where retail investors are still sensitive to geopolitical factors and are in a relatively early stage of maturity. Tokenization can accelerate both information flows and the spread of sentiment. Without appropriate “safety rails,” several risks may emerge: retail investors may mistake tokenization for “risk-free innovation,” easily follow Key Opinion Leader (KOL)-driven hype or copy trading; complex products may be wrongly sold under the banner of digital transformation; and association with large brands, financial institutions, or banks may lead investors to lower their guard in a market that is not yet fully mature.
In particular, rumors or inconsistent policy changes can trigger “herd” sell-offs. A lack of clarity in regulatory messaging will erode trust. That is why, in my work in Vietnam, I consistently stress that infrastructure and human capital development, along with market education, are critical foundations and cannot lag behind product development.
In my view, tokenization should not be positioned as a “crypto experiment” but as a tool to support capital mobilization for SMEs, State-owned enterprises, and cross-border financing. In addition, tokenization can serve as an investment channel for green projects and infrastructure, combined with new payment methods such as stablecoins or central bank digital currencies. This is how institutional capital can be attracted from international markets. More importantly, tokenization represents a modernization of market infrastructure, enabling more transparent and efficient clearing and settlement processes.
Mr. Tran Dinh Nha, Founder and CEO of Varmeta
Vietnam is a “controlled acceleration” market for real-world asset tokenization. Regulators have clearly demonstrated openness towards tokenization, but only within a framework that is transparent, tightly governed, closely supervised, and clearly separated from the existing core financial infrastructure.
In the short term, the greatest opportunity lies in partnering with domestic issuers and with platforms that are expected to be licensed in the future to design real-world asset products aligned with pilot models. These products should have clearly defined underlying collateral, target foreign investors, and be built to institutional-grade compliance standards. Initial deployment should take place within International Financial Centers and regulatory sandboxes, before being gradually expanded to the domestic market.
From an opportunity perspective, I believe Vietnam is in a favorable position because it is building its tokenization framework from the ground up. This allows the country to avoid fragmentation caused by legacy systems and to design interoperable, data-rich infrastructure from Day 1; something that many developed markets are currently struggling to achieve.
This advantage enables Vietnam to integrate leverage visibility directly into the infrastructure itself, such as requiring on-chain registration of collateral assets, standardizing reporting of related obligations, and allowing regulators to access real-time supervisory data from intermediaries.
By positioning International Financial Centers as strategic sandboxes and, in the early stages, limiting real-world asset products to foreign investors under strict regulations, Vietnam can test and refine institutional-grade structures without exposing domestic retail investors to the risks of “first versions.” We are ready to accompany this process by designing products that meet global investor expectations while remaining fully aligned with Vietnam’s regulatory conditions.
We do not view tokenization merely as a feature or a technical wrapper. At Varmeta, we see it as a new foundational infrastructure for financial markets, a “pipeline layer” capable of supporting the entire value chain, from primary issuance and secondary trading to collateral management, reporting, and supervision.
If tokenization was to be viewed only as a technological innovation, the discussion would center on digitizing ownership rights, using smart contracts, and improving settlement and reconciliation. But if it was to be understood as a restructuring of market infrastructure, the focus would shift to deeper questions: how assets can be issued, held, and transferred faster and at lower cost; how rights and obligations can be enforced with higher levels of control and security; how regulators can observe and supervise risks in real time to protect investors through prevention rather than post-incident remediation; and how investors can access better products with higher liquidity, 24/7 availability, and fewer intermediaries.
Google translate