Tokenization’s Next Chapter: Where Will the Profits Go?

Preface

For years, crypto advocates have argued that stocks, bonds, credit, and other financial assets would eventually move onto blockchains. That shift is now gaining attention beyond crypto-native circles. Citrini Research, known for its analysis of technology, artificial intelligence, and markets, examined the trend in its 79-page report, Breaking the Wall. Its central idea is that blockchains may finally have a clear purpose: supporting financial assets that investors already use and want to own. Yet growing onchain activity does not automatically reveal which investments will benefit. The central question is not only whether tokenization grows, but where the resulting economic value will accrue. This article explores the case for tokenization, the potential sources of revenue, and the uncertainty surrounding its eventual winners.

Lazy bag

Tokenization brings traditional financial assets onto blockchains, where they may be easier to transfer, trade, lend, and use as collateral. Stablecoins, wallets, exchanges, and decentralized finance protocols have helped build the infrastructure for this transition, while financial firms and regulators are beginning to engage with it. However, moving assets onchain does not guarantee that any one cryptocurrency or blockchain will gain value. Revenue may flow to issuers, trading venues, infrastructure providers, established distributors, or the networks that process transactions. The larger opportunity may emerge when tokenized assets support automated financial services, including AI agents. The market remains extremely early, and future leaders may differ from today’s prominent platforms.

Main Body

Crypto infrastructure has developed for more than a decade. Developers have built exchanges, lending protocols, wallets, and systems for transferring money. Yet many of the assets investors most commonly seek—stocks, bonds, credit, and commodities—remained within traditional financial markets. That separation prompted a persistent criticism: crypto had built elaborate financial tools without connecting them to a sufficiently broad range of real-world assets.

Citrini Research’s report, Breaking the Wall, argues that this situation is starting to change. The research firm, which is better known for its work on technology, AI, and market trends than for promoting crypto, described tokenization as a potential turning point. Its concise conclusion was: “Blockchains have finally found their raison d’être.” The claim reflects an evolution in the industry’s pitch. Rather than focusing only on trading cryptocurrencies, advocates can point to the possibility of representing familiar financial assets on blockchain networks.

Tokenization refers to representing ownership or rights associated with an asset as a digital token on a blockchain. The underlying asset might be a U.S. Treasury security, a stock, a fund, or a credit instrument. The token can be recorded and transferred through blockchain infrastructure, subject to the rules governing that asset and the systems supporting it. In principle, this could make it easier for financial products to move between applications and participate in services such as lending and collateral management.

The argument is not simply that investors could trade a familiar stock at an unusual hour. Citrini’s broader point is that tokenized assets may behave more like software: they can be designed to move between compatible applications, support automated processes, and interact with other financial products. If an asset can be used across multiple platforms without each one rebuilding custody and settlement arrangements from scratch, tokenization could change how financial services are assembled. The extent to which this works in practice depends on technical interoperability, legal rights, market structure, and the willingness of institutions to support the relevant systems.

Several pieces of infrastructure are already developing alongside tokenization. Stablecoins provide blockchain-based representations of value that can function as onchain cash. Wallets, exchanges, and decentralized finance protocols have become more mature. Retail-facing companies such as Robinhood (HOOD) and Coinbase (COIN) provide access to customers, while banks and wealth platforms may also serve as distribution channels. In the United States and elsewhere, regulators are beginning to provide clearer pathways for tokenized securities to enter markets. These developments may make the ecosystem more practical, although they do not settle how its revenues will be shared.

That distinction matters because tokenization itself is not a new idea. Crypto-native investors have discussed real-world assets (RWA) for years. What has changed is that a research firm outside the crypto-focused community has presented the thesis in terms familiar to large investors: where might profits arise? More assets recorded on blockchains could expand activity across the ecosystem, but it does not automatically make Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), or any particular blockchain the best investment. The economic effects depend on where users transact, which services they need, and who controls access to those services.

Arthur Hayes, BitMEX’s co-founder and chief investment officer of Maelstrom, has questioned whether recording an asset in a different digital database creates meaningful value by itself. In a recent interview with The Rollup, he noted that RWA tokenization has been discussed for a decade and challenged the idea that improved recordkeeping alone offers a compelling business case. “Okay, doing better bookkeeping. Thank you,” Hayes said. “Where are you actually going to make money in tokenization?” His question highlights the difference between adoption of a technology and capture of its economic benefits.

One possible source of revenue is the issuance and administration of tokenized assets. Other potential sources include trading fees, stablecoin demand, lending, and the use of assets as collateral. These activities may create value at different points in the transaction chain. Issuers could earn fees for creating and servicing products. Exchanges and trading venues could benefit from additional activity. Lenders may gain access to new collateral, while providers of blockchain infrastructure could charge for the services that support transactions.

Christian Magoon, CEO of Amplify ETFs, which runs the tokenization-focused TKNQ fund, has described infrastructure providers as potential “toll booths on the blockchain toll roads.” In this view, companies that provide essential services could earn revenue as assets and transactions move through their systems. Distribution may be just as important. Coinbase, Robinhood, banks, and wealth platforms already have customer relationships that could help them introduce tokenized financial products. A technically capable network may not capture substantial value if customers instead depend on a separate company to discover, access, or manage their assets.

Jeff Dorman, CIO of investment firm Arca, expects the process of tokenizing assets to become increasingly commoditized as more competitors enter. If creating a token becomes a standard service, the activity of issuance alone may not provide a lasting advantage. Dorman sees more durable economic opportunities arising after an asset reaches a blockchain: when it is traded, lent, or used as collateral for borrowing. This perspective shifts attention from the act of converting an asset into a token to the financial services and market activity that follow.

Potential beneficiaries could therefore include a range of companies and protocols. Dorman identified Securitize (SECZ), as well as blockchain-based trading venue Hyperliquid, decentralized lender Aave (AAVE), and decentralized exchange Aerodrome (AERO). Their possible roles differ: some may support tokenization, while others provide trading, lending, or exchange services. The examples illustrate why a broad increase in onchain assets does not imply a single obvious winner. A project’s ability to attract users and sustain activity may matter more than simply being connected to the tokenization trend.

Zach Pandl, head of digital asset research at Grayscale, described a more direct way to approach the trend: focus on the networks that host RWAs and process transactions. He named Ethereum (ETH), BNB Chain (BNB), and Solana (SOL) as industry leaders today. This view treats network usage as a potential source of demand. If tokenized assets generate transactions, the networks supporting those transactions could become more important. Still, the relationship between network activity and the value of a network’s associated token depends on how the system operates and how its economics are structured.

Other networks may develop distinct institutional roles. Pandl pointed to Avalanche (AVAX) and Canton (CC) as examples of projects taking more institutionally focused approaches to tokenized assets. They could see increased demand if banks and asset managers move more activity onchain. Institutional adoption may require systems that address operational requirements, compliance, privacy, and the needs of large financial organizations. Different networks could therefore serve different customers or use cases rather than competing in a single, uniform market.

Hayes sees another possibility that could make tokenization more significant than improved recordkeeping: AI agents operating financial services. He said, “I think the best story I want to tell is that AI agents will run all of your financial services.” The concept involves software managing financial tasks continuously—for example, rebalancing a portfolio, moving idle cash toward higher yields, locating a less expensive loan, or adjusting collateral as conditions change. These systems would need access to money and investments through programmable processes, potentially without a person approving each individual transaction.

That vision has a natural connection to blockchain infrastructure. Programmable assets, always-on markets, smart-contract lending, and near-instant settlement could provide tools for software agents to interact with financial products. Citrini made a related argument: tokenized assets can translate financial products into a machine-native format that AI agents can work with. This does not mean automated financial services are assured or that blockchain is the only possible foundation. It does, however, explain why advocates see a potential link between tokenization and the growing use of AI in finance.

There are significant uncertainties. Tokenized assets remain small compared with global financial markets, and the industry’s current leaders may not retain their positions as the market develops. Magoon emphasized that the market is “extremely early,” adding that a long runway increases the likelihood that future winners may differ from today’s leaders. Adoption will depend not only on technical capability but also on regulation, investor demand, distribution, trust, and the ability of platforms to provide useful services at scale.

For investors and observers, the practical question is therefore broader than identifying which blockchain supports a tokenized asset. It is necessary to consider who issues and services the asset, where it is traded, which platform connects it to customers, how it can be used as collateral, and which network processes its transactions. The growth of tokenization may create opportunities across several layers, but competition and commoditization could limit the advantage held by any single provider. Citrini’s report has helped bring the discussion to a wider audience; the harder task is determining how, and where, adoption will translate into durable economic value.

Key Insights Table