In my view, the core appeal of real-world asset (RWA) tokenization lies in its ability to combine the digitization and standardization of physical assets with greater liquidity, broader investor access, particularly for traditionally-illiquid assets, lower transaction costs, enhanced transparency, and new capital-raising opportunities.
At its core, investors focus on two things. The first is liquidity: they want the flexibility to convert assets into cash or exit an investment when needed, rather than having capital tied up for extended periods. The second is yield: whether the investment generates returns that are attractive enough to justify the risk.
Vietnam has a significant opportunity in this area. Consider domestic coffee suppliers selling to buyers in the UAE. They often wait 90 to 120 days to receive payment. By tokenizing these trade receivables, businesses could substantially shorten that waiting period, unlocking working capital as soon as the transaction is established.
Before implementation, however, it is important to step back and address several fundamental legal issues. The first is determining whether a token represents legal ownership of an underlying asset or merely reflects the economic value generated by that asset. This distinction is critical because different tokenization structures carry different legal implications, collateral arrangements, and risk profiles.
Another key consideration is the difference between local legal systems and common law jurisdictions. If the underlying asset is located in Vietnam but is being tokenized to attract international capital, the legal structure should ideally be established within a common law jurisdiction. The reason is straightforward: if the token is governed solely by local law, foreign investors may find it more difficult to assess risk, understand their legal rights, and evaluate the investment opportunity, reducing its overall appeal.
When it comes to development priorities for the RWA market, it is important to remember that the primary objective of tokenization is to make assets more accessible and easier to trade. The initial focus should therefore be on assets with clear cash flows, short investment cycles, and straightforward verification, such as trade receivables with maturities of three to six months or cross-border payment obligations. These assets are tied to real business activity, supported by identifiable cash flows, and allow investors to assess repayment capacity and risk with greater confidence.
I want to emphasize that tokenization is not simply about putting an asset on a blockchain. Its real value lies in transforming that asset into an instrument that is more transparent, more accessible, and more liquid. That is why I believe the market should begin with assets backed by real economic activity and tangible cash flows, rather than focusing first on larger but less liquid asset classes.
* * *
From a business perspective, the most important factor when evaluating a new market is real user demand. No matter how promising a product may appear, it is unlikely to create sustainable value if it does not address a genuine market need.
That is why real-world asset (RWA) tokenization remains an emerging sector, with few markets having established clear leadership. The true value of tokenization is not simply moving assets onto a blockchain. It lies in expanding access to asset classes that have traditionally been constrained by scale, cost, or market structure. Fractional ownership is meaningful only when it enables investors to access high-demand assets that would otherwise remain out of reach.
Beyond that, I see three additional benefits of RWA tokenization. The first is 24/7 operation, which can significantly shorten settlement cycles by removing reliance on the operating hours of traditional financial systems. The second is greater transparency and certainty. The third is simplicity and convenience for users. In the future, the platforms with the strongest competitive advantage will be those that provide secure, intuitive, and user-friendly access to a broad range of assets through a single integrated system.
For a market to be truly ready for digital assets, however, demand alone is not enough. Regulators and asset issuers must also be prepared. For national asset tokenization initiatives, governments need to define their objectives from the outset: Is the goal to serve domestic investors only, or to attract international capital? If the ambition is to reach global markets, products must be designed with cross-border distribution in mind and supported by partners with established international networks.
I have seen many digital asset projects fail because they underestimated the importance of market scale during the design phase. National stablecoins are a good example. If a stablecoin serves only a small domestic market, it may struggle to generate the liquidity and transaction velocity needed to succeed. A successful stablecoin requires either a sufficiently large domestic market to create network effects or the ability to connect with global markets. These are critical considerations for any country developing digital asset initiatives.
* * *
Among the most common misconceptions about financial institutions adopting digital assets is the belief that they are simply “investing in crypto.” In reality, the transformation is far broader. What we are witnessing is a comprehensive modernization of the financial system.
Rather than merely allocating part of their portfolios to digital assets, financial institutions are leveraging blockchain technology to redesign how markets operate, from trading, custody, and asset management to payments and settlement. For this transformation to take place at scale, however, the industry must first establish the right standards.
The opportunity, however, is not defined by transaction volume alone. Equally important are the foundational standards that enable these systems to operate safely and efficiently before transactions are executed. In my view, there are four key areas that deserve attention.
The first is identity. In traditional financial markets, every participant must undergo identity verification in accordance with the regulations of the relevant jurisdiction and institution type. As assets become tokenized, this requirement becomes even more critical. Financial institutions need to know exactly who they are transacting with, whether the counterparty is an individual or an organization.
The second is data privacy. Privacy in financial markets should not be confused with anonymity. Institutions require “privacy by default,” meaning that detailed transaction data should be accessible only to the parties directly involved, while remaining available under controlled conditions to auditors or regulators when necessary.
Many people confuse institutional privacy with anonymity, but they are fundamentally different concepts. A modern financial system cannot be built on anonymity. It must instead provide appropriate safeguards for privacy while maintaining accountability.
The third is compliance. Risk management rules, transaction controls, and regulatory requirements should be embedded directly into the protocol layer rather than applied only after transactions have taken place. This is particularly important in highly-regulated financial markets.
The fourth is instant settlement. The greatest value of moving assets onto blockchain infrastructure is not simply digitizing them. It is enabling those assets to move, be deployed, and settle quickly across institutions, markets, and jurisdictions.
Taken together, instant settlement, privacy, identity, and compliance will become the defining standards by which financial institutions evaluate the next generation of digital financial networks. Any network capable of meeting all four requirements will stand out in what is likely to become a much narrower field of viable options
* * *
Over the long term, we believe the financial industry is entering a period of profound transformation. Today’s financial system is like a house built 60 years ago, in that it remains solid and continues to function well. But blockchain technology is laying the foundation for a new house, enabling the financial system to gradually evolve. Stablecoins, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), and a new generation of financial products are all being built on this emerging infrastructure.
When discussing tokenized RWAs, many people focus primarily on the tokenization technology itself. In reality, the critical factors are cash flow and market liquidity. Liquidity does not emerge on its own; it depends on the availability of capital and the existence of investment products that allow capital to circulate efficiently. Developing the RWA market is therefore not simply about creating new digital assets. It is about building a trusted financial infrastructure capable of attracting capital and supporting its sustainable deployment.
In practice, every country, not just Vietnam, views tokenized RWAs as a way to attract more investors. Achieving that goal, however, requires a transparent framework that clearly defines how investors can participate, how they can exit their investments, and how different asset classes should be treated. If the immediate objective is to build market liquidity, it makes sense to begin with liquid and easily accessible assets, such as certificates of deposit or short-term bonds. By contrast, tokens backed by real estate or infrastructure projects are better suited to long-term investment strategies. Different asset classes therefore require different approaches to capital management.
For emerging markets such as Vietnam, I believe the priority should not be attracting capital at any cost, but ensuring that capital enters the market in an orderly manner and supports long-term economic growth. Blockchain can help achieve this by embedding market rules directly into the underlying infrastructure. It can define which categories of investors are eligible to participate, specify when capital may be deployed or withdrawn, and automatically execute pre-defined conditions. This improves transparency, reduces reliance on manual processes, and promotes consistency across the market.
The key is to establish an appropriate regulatory framework for each category of investor and each type of asset before using blockchain to enforce those rules in a consistent, transparent, and efficient manner. When markets operate under a clear, predictable, and verifiable rulebook, investor confidence in digital assets will strengthen, creating a solid foundation for the market’s long-term development.
* * *
The development of the tokenized real-world asset (RWA) market should begin with institutional participation. Institutions are best positioned to build the necessary infrastructure, develop investment products, and create market liquidity. Once businesses and financial institutions become deeply integrated into the ecosystem, the market will have a solid foundation to expand to retail investors. For RWAs to achieve broad adoption, three key elements must come together.
The first is accessibility. Products must be simple and intuitive enough for users to adopt, while also offering sufficient liquidity and a straightforward path to converting digital assets into fiat currency.
The second is distribution. From what I have observed, many blockchain networks and exchanges have developed standalone applications for retail users, but not all have succeeded. The key lesson is that, rather than asking users to migrate to entirely new platforms, blockchain technology should be embedded into platforms people already use. That approach significantly lowers barriers to adoption.
The third is composability. The value of tokenization does not lie simply in putting an asset on a blockchain. It comes from making that asset part of a broader digital financial ecosystem. For example, if gold is tokenized, investors gain not only easier ownership but also exposure to changes in the asset’s value. At the same time, the tokenized asset can be used as collateral for borrowing or integrated into other financial protocols.
Tokenized RWAs will gain traction only if the technology is easy to use and delivers tangible value to users. For Vietnam, tokenizing yield-generating products could be a practical starting point. In addition, tokenization in payments and cross-border remittances shows considerable promise, particularly given the large number of Vietnamese citizens working in Japan, South Korea, the Middle East, and other overseas markets who regularly send money home.
Ultimately, rather than launching tokenization initiatives across multiple sectors simultaneously, Vietnam should focus its resources on a small number of promising and practical use cases. Once those initial pilots demonstrate clear value, expanding RWA tokenization into other sectors will become significantly easier.
* * *
Issuing tokens is not the biggest challenge in the real-world asset (RWA) market. Many organizations already have the technical capability to do that. The more important question is how to deliver those tokens to investors in a safe and transparent manner. That is why exchanges play such a critical role.
In practice, every exchange has its own listing standards, while each regulator establishes its own legal framework and eligibility criteria for digital assets that can be traded.
In Japan, for example, a token typically undergoes a review process lasting two to three months before it can be listed, whereas the approval process under the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is generally faster. Though regulatory approaches differ, the common principle is that exchanges must implement rigorous due diligence processes to help regulators assess the risks associated with each asset before it reaches the market.
Exchanges are responsible not only for evaluating the quality of assets before listing, but also for demonstrating that appropriate liquidity arrangements, risk management frameworks, and investor protection measures are in place. In my view, these are the foundations for building market trust and supporting long-term, sustainable growth.
At the same time, designing the legal framework for tokenized RWAs will not be straightforward. Real estate provides a good example. If Vietnam moves forward with real estate tokenization, it could become a highly-promising market and potentially position the country among the early pioneers in the field. However, several fundamental questions must first be answered. Which investors should be eligible to purchase these tokens? To what extent should foreign investors be allowed to participate? And which categories of real estate should be permitted for tokenization?
The answers to these questions will ultimately shape the legal framework for the market. Once clear rules are established governing eligible investors, asset classes, and capital flows, the roles of exchanges, financial institutions, and other market participants will become much more clearly defined. That will provide the foundation for launching Vietnam’s first RWA projects in a safe, transparent, and sustainable manner. Technology can make markets more efficient, but it delivers lasting value only when supported by a clear and consistent regulatory framework.
Google translate