Key Takeaways

The exploration of Real World Asset (RWA) reveals several critical insights:

  • Narrow Definitions Limit Scope: The prevailing approach to RWA tokenization employs a narrow definition of RWAs, a methodology that is both conceptually flawed and commercially impractical.

  • Broad and Inclusive Definition is Essential: A comprehensive and appropriate definition of RWA encompasses any asset that can be legally owned and transferred from one entity to another, within the framework of laws established by nations or international bodies.

  • Distinct from Unreal World Assets: RWAs stand in contrast to Unreal World Assets (UWAs), which exist solely within virtual, digital, or theoretical realms and are regulated by internal policies and agreements crafted by private parties.

  • Beyond Physical Tangibility: RWAs should not be narrowly equated with physical or tangible assets, nor considered the antithesis of intangible assets. The distinction lies in their legal, rather than physical, characteristics.

  • Industry Consensus is Lacking: A global inconsistency and absence of consensus regarding the definition of RWA results in a fragmented landscape, hindering the development of universal tokenization solutions.

PreviousExamples Of RWAs Definitions IncoherenceNextAppendix B: Digitization vs Tokenization

Last updated