Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.11651

Tokenize Everything, But Can You Sell It? RWA Liquidity Challenges and the Road Ahead

Rischan Mafrur
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) promises to transform financial markets by enabling fractional ownership, global accessibility, and programmable settlement of traditionally illiquid assets such as real estate, private credit, and government bonds. While technical progress has been rapid, with over \$25 billion in tokenized RWAs brought on-chain as of 2025, liquidity remains a critical bottleneck. This paper investigates the gap between tokenization and tradability, drawing on recent academic research and market data from platforms such as RWA.xyz. We document that most RWA tokens exhibit low trading volumes, long holding periods, and limited investor participation, despite their potential for 24/7 global markets. Through case studies of tokenized real estate, private credit, and tokenized treasury funds, we present empirical liquidity observations that reveal low transfer activity, limited active address counts, and minimal secondary trading for most tokenized asset classes. Next, we categorize the structural barriers to liquidity, including regulatory gating, custodial concentration, whitelisting, valuation opacity, and lack of decentralized trading venues. Finally, we propose actionable pathways to improve liquidity, ranging from hybrid market structures and collateral-based liquidity to transparency enhancements and compliance innovation. Our findings contribute to the growing discourse on digital asset market microstructure and highlight that realizing the liquidity potential of RWAs requires coordinated progress across legal, technical, and institutional domains.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.GNcs.CRq-fin.CP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rischan Mafrur. 2025-08-03. Tokenize Everything, But Can You Sell It? RWA Liquidity Challenges and the Road Ahead. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11651

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Compliant AI Infrastructure for Regulated Finance: A tiered multi-agent framework with DLT audit trails for financial operations in DACH

We present a compliance-first architecture for AI in regulated finance that treats regulation as an orientation layer rather than a deterministic ruleset. A matrix of regulatory intent and exposure provides a compact classification handle, which a governed policy compiler then maps into concrete prohibitions, obligations and runtime budgets. Prohibitions constrain feasibility and block externalisation, while obligations extend tasks with artefacts that must meet explicit admissibility criteria. Committee activation remains policy-driven and proportionate, preserving efficiency while ensuring supervisory oversight. Evidence, decisions and reason codes are bound to a permissioned DAG with deterministic timestamping, enabling replay, provenance checks and clear attribution of failure. Clause-level legal indexing with effective dates and capability-based agent routing ensure portability across DACH and the wider EU. The result is assurance by construction: compliance is embedded in execution and verifiable by auditors without sacrificing proportionality or transparency.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

Multi-Agent AI Architecture for Regulated Insurers: A generic AI framework under Solvency II and the AI Act in Austria and Germany

This paper proposes a formal multi-agent architecture for implementing enterprise AI in regulated insurance firms, integrating economic theory with institutional design. The framework synthesises three core theoretical perspectives: Arrow's risk pooling theory to formalise risk transformation under uncertainty, Nash equilibrium to model strategic interactions between decision agents, and Principal-Agent theory to address incentive alignment under information asymmetry. The insurer is modelled as a constrained optimisation entity operating under solvency, legal, ESG, and operational boundaries, with specific focus on the regulatory contexts of Austria and Germany. The architecture decomposes the firm into multiple specialised agents, each representing distinct functional domains such as capital management, underwriting, claims processing, compliance, fraud detection, and client interaction. Human-in-the-loop agents are integrated through a tiered access control system, ensuring differentiated data visibility and decision influence based on user roles. An orchestrator agent supervises inter-agent coordination, enforcing regulatory admissibility and institutional coherence under frameworks such as Solvency II, the AI Act, and the Insurance Distribution Directive. Protocol integration is based on asynchronous execution and dual-layer communication infrastructures, specifically the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Agent-to-Agent (A2A) messaging. This structure enables the systematic design of compliant, auditable multi-agent systems aligned with the institutional logic of financial firms in Austria and Germany.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

The Virtue of Sparsity in Complexity

Sparsity or complexity? In modern high-dimensional asset pricing, these are often viewed as competing principles: recent empirical evidence favors richer models, while economic intuition has long favored parsimony. We reconcile this tension by distinguishing capacity sparsity-restrictions on effective model capacity-from factor sparsity-the parsimonious structure of priced risks. Revisiting the benchmark empirical design of Didisheim et al. (2025), we combine nonlinear feature expansions with basis pursuit, using column generation and GPU acceleration to scale estimation to 432 million candidate factors. Reaching this scale reveals a reversal in out-of-sample performance: sparse portfolios trail dense ridgeless benchmarks at lower complexity but achieve a higher Sharpe ratio and lower pricing error at the largest candidate set. Capacity expansion and factor sparsity are therefore complements: enlarging the candidate space allows a parsimonious pricing kernel to outperform its dense counterpart.

q-fin.GN↗