# RWA Market&#x20;

## RWA Market Size

#### A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity in Rapid Growth Current Landscape:

The global RWA tokenization market is valued at $40 billion (2023, Boston Consulting Group), primarily driven by real estate, bonds, and commodities.

Institutional adoption is accelerating, with over $700 billion in traditional assets now linked to blockchain infrastructure (Chainlink, 2023).

### Growth Projections

McKinsey forecasts RWA tokenization to reach $4–5 trillion by 2030, with a 50%+ CAGR, fueled by efficiency gains and fractional ownership models.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink emphasizes tokenization’s potential to disrupt the $300 trillion global financial asset market, calling it "the next evolution of markets."

### Key Drivers

#### Liquidity Unlock:&#x20;

Tokenizing illiquid assets reduces minimum investment thresholds by 90%.

#### Cost Efficiency:&#x20;

Blockchain slashes settlement times (from days to seconds) and cuts transaction costs by 30–50% (World Economic Forum, 2023).

## Existing RWA Cases and problems

### 1. Asset centralization risk

#### Centralization of custody and governance

Most projects rely on a single custodian or centralized entity to manage the underlying assets, resulting in the concentration of asset control. If the custodian encounters a financial crisis, operational errors or fraud, the security and liquidity of assets will be directly threatened.

#### Centralized smart contract permissions

The project party may retain super permissions for smart contracts (such as suspending transactions, modifying rules), causing trust issues, violating the principle of blockchain decentralization, and posing the risk of single-point attacks or abuse.

#### Node and network centralization

Some projects use private chains or consortium chains, and the nodes are controlled by a few institutions, which weakens transparency and anti-censorship, making it difficult to gain the trust of the decentralized ecosystem.

### 2. Single underlying asset

#### Concentration of asset categories

Most projects focus on traditional high-value assets such as government bonds, real estate or commodities, lacking diversification (such as money market funds, notes, limited partnership funds, etc.), resulting in weak risk resistance and vulnerability to market fluctuations.

#### Liquidity mismatch

Poor liquidity of underlying assets (such as funds that are open for subscription and redemption once a month or real estate) does not match the high liquidity demand of tokens, which may cause a run or price decoupling (such as the collapse of stablecoins due to the inability to realize the underlying assets in a timely manner).

#### Geographic concentration risk

Assets are concentrated in specific countries or regions, facing the risks of geopolitical, exchange rate fluctuations or regulatory changes (such as a country suddenly banning asset transfers).

### 3. Unclear regulatory compliance and legal framework:

Most RWA platforms lack unified standards in cross-border asset title confirmation, taxation, securities law compliance, etc.

#### Legal framework is ambiguous

Countries have not yet unified the classification of tokenized assets (securities, commodities, alternative assets), and projects may face penalties for compliance errors (such as the SEC suing unregistered security tokens).

#### &#xD;Cross-border compliance complexity

Global asset allocation needs to meet the regulatory requirements of multiple countries, increasing compliance costs, such as differences in anti-money laundering (AML) and KYC rules.

#### &#xD;Tax treatment disputes

The tax determination of token transactions, dividends or redemptions is unclear, which may cause tax risks for investors.

### **4. Technical vulnerabilities and asset security risks Issues:**&#x20;

#### Insufficient asset verification

It is difficult for investors to verify the authenticity, valuation and status of the underlying assets (such as whether they are repeatedly mortgaged) in real time, and they rely on third-party auditing agencies, but the audit frequency and standards vary. Project parties may selectively disclose information and conceal asset risks, leading to biased investor decisions.

#### Smart contract vulnerabilities

Code defects may be exploited (such as reentry attacks, permission bypasses), resulting in asset theft or protocol paralysis.

#### Poor cross-chain interoperability

When assets are transferred across chains, they rely on the security of the bridge solution, and the cross-chain bridge has become a high-incidence area for hacker attacks.







