Table of Contents

IntroductionThe onchain-ization of real-world assets has never been a new story — but it’s a path that has yet to be truly realized.

Section 1｜Phantom Origins: Colored Coins and the Original Sin of Asset TokenizationFrom Bitcoin’s Colored Coins to the radical visions of Mastercoin and Counterparty, RWA was entangled in a lack of legitimacy and trust from the very beginning.

Section 2｜Ideals in the Bubble: ICOs, STOs, and the First Wave of Tokenization FallaciesSmart contracts introduced the narrative of programmable assets, yet ICOs became hollow fundraising tools, while STOs got stuck in regulatory sandboxes.

Section 3｜The Onchain Financial Awakening: The Alliance of DeFi, RWA, NFTs, and the Stability NarrativeRWA finally entered real application logic—collateralization, lending, and yield generation—while NFTs expanded the boundaries of what counts as an "asset."

Section 4｜Post-2022: Balancing Regulation, Institutions, and the BubbleOn one hand, projects embraced MiCA, CCIP, and Project Guardian; on the other, trust in assets remained reliant on off-chain custody and centralized structures.

Section 5｜Next-Gen RWA: What If Assets Were Alive?BlueX seeks to build asset networks, not just asset lists—enabling AI governance and structural autonomy to break free from the “representation without participation” paradigm.

Conclusion RWA is not just the evolution of how assets are expressed onchain—it’s a redefinition of asset sovereignty and user participation in the digital economy.

Introduction

**"Tokenizing assets onchain is not a new narrative."**Long before terms like Ethereum, DeFi, or NFTs became mainstream, people were already trying to bring real-world assets—property, stocks, even a bottle of whisky—onto the blockchain. Back then, they "colored" specific portions of Bitcoin to signal that this wasn’t just an ordinary coin, but a token representing a virtual contract.

More than a decade has passed. Technology has evolved, narratives have shifted, bubbles have come and gone—but the concept of Real-World Assets (RWA) has never truly left the stage. It’s been a persistent undercurrent, flickering in and out of Web3’s grand narrative built on speculation and imagination. Sometimes dressed up as NFTs, sometimes revived through STOs under the banner of regulatory compliance, and at other times directly linked to bonds or real estate, RWAs have become a way for institutions to cautiously dip their toes into onchain waters.

Now that the market is once again spotlighting RWA, we’re compelled to revisit a question that’s long been asked but rarely answered with clarity: Is RWA truly the bridge between Web2 and Web3? And along its winding journey through the blockchain world—what real, review-worthy traces has it left behind?

Part 1: Early Phantoms — Colored Coins and the Original Sin of Asset Fantasies

In 2012, the term "Colored Coins" was first introduced in the Bitcoin community. The idea was simple: by “coloring” a unit of bitcoin—essentially tagging it—it could represent a real-world asset, such as a house, a corporate bond, or even a piece of artwork. This act of "coloring" became one of the earliest known attempts at asset tokenization, and is widely regarded as the conceptual prototype of Real-World Assets (RWA) on the blockchain.

But the dream was quickly broken by reality.

Bitcoin's scripting language was never meant for complex logic. The Colored Coins method relied on extremely limited metadata fields (such as OP_RETURN), making it hard to verify, impossible to compose, and ultimately incapable of supporting essential asset flows like trading or ownership transfers. More importantly, even if a piece of property was “tagged” on the chain—who would recognize that on-chain claim? Without legal backing or regulatory endorsement, Colored Coins were stuck in a trust vacuum from day one.

In 2013, Mastercoin (later rebranded as Omni Layer) attempted to systematize the Colored Coins approach by introducing its own token protocol and enabling asset issuance on Bitcoin. It supported a variety of token types, including bonds and options—making it, technically, one of the closest things to smart contracts ever built on Bitcoin. But in terms of adoption, it remained a self-contained experiment with little real-world traction.

Around the same time, another project called Counterparty took an even more radical approach—building a logic layer "on top of" Bitcoin to support the tokenization of game assets and digital art. Yet all these efforts ultimately struggled under the weight of Bitcoin’s limited throughput and a lack of developer tooling and community support.

Interestingly, Colored Coins sparked heated debate within the Bitcoin community. Many Bitcoin purists saw it as a misuse of the blockchain—a deviation from the true mission of peer-to-peer electronic cash. It was doubted, dismissed, and quickly forgotten.

And yet, in hindsight, these early failures were far from meaningless. They revealed that the very idea of RWA was entangled in three core dilemmas from the beginning:

• 1. Insufficient onchain expressiveness:

  Asset ownership is not something that can simply be “written into a ledger”; it requires a comprehensive system of verification, transfer, and governance.

• 2. The legal vacuum in reality:

  Onchain "ownership" does not necessarily translate to offchain recognition. In the absence of legal frameworks, regulatory support, and property rights systems, tokens often fail to take effect.

• 3. The boundary dilemma of decentralization:

  Real assets are often “stuck” offchain, held in custody by centralized institutions—creating an inherent conflict with Web3’s principles of trustlessness and autonomy.

The failure of Colored Coins was not the end of the RWA narrative, but the disillusionment it had to undergo before moving from fantasy to reality.

It didn’t trigger a boom in asset tokenization, but it left us with the most fundamental question:

What truly qualifies as a real-world asset that belongs onchain?

Part 2: Ideals Meet the Bubble — ICOs, STOs, and the First Wave of Tokenization Fallacies

In 2015, Ethereum’s mainnet went live, bringing Turing-complete smart contracts into the blockchain world for the first time. For many early tech idealists, this not only represented an upgrade in coding capabilities, but also marked the true beginning of the Web3 era. The tokenization of assets was put on the agenda—if a smart contract could represent a loan, a property, or equity, could the logic of traditional finance be replicated onchain? This was the second appearance of RWA in the Web3 world, and the first time it was seriously discussed as part of a “financial revolution.”

But soon, the market deviated from its original intention. Between 2016 and 2017, the ICO boom exploded. Thousands of projects raised funds through ERC-20 tokens, sparking a wave of speculation where “everything could be tokenized.” Many projects claimed in their whitepapers to tokenize real estate, gold, energy, and even water, but the underlying assets were either vague or non-existent. RWAs at this stage were more like “token projects under the banner of assets.” The mapping between tokens and real assets was merely narrative, without legal, custodial, or technical closure.

Some projects tried to fix this hollow state. For example, REAL in 2017 claimed to tokenize global real estate, allowing investors to receive rental income through token holdings. It sounded groundbreaking, but quickly faded due to unclear regulations, difficulties in asset verification, and an opaque operating model. REAL’s story wasn’t unique—it was one of many “asset tokenization” promises during the ICO narrative, and ultimately became part of the bubble.

After 2018, as the SEC increased regulatory pressure on ICOs, projects began seeking compliant pathways. STOs (Security Token Offerings) emerged as an alternative. Compared to ICOs, STOs emphasized the securitization of real assets before issuing them onchain. Projects like Securitize and tZERO explored this direction. Ethereum also introduced standards like ERC-1400, supporting security tokens with built-in KYC and holding freeze mechanisms, aiming to provide a compliant vehicle for RWA.

However, the implementation of STOs remained difficult. First, regulatory differences across countries were huge, making large-scale rollout hard. Second, the user experience was poor—investment thresholds were high and processes were complex. More importantly, the gap between onchain and offchain still existed. Key elements like asset custody, valuation, and circulation couldn’t be truly decentralized. At this stage, although the vision for RWA was more compliant and realistic, most projects remained stuck in a state where “technology was possible, but the market wasn’t buying it.”

Looking back, ICOs and STOs represented two extreme approaches in RWA practice: One was a financial fantasy without assets, and the other a compliance-focused test field. The former became a bubble, while the latter struggled to land. Together, they exposed three major challenges faced by RWA:

• Strong onchain expressiveness, but lacking real-world legal recognition;

• Intense tension between decentralization and regulation—once moving toward compliance, reliance on centralized intermediaries becomes inevitable;

• Severe disconnection between narrative and technology—demand for tokenized assets hadn’t yet formed, but infrastructure was already forced to launch.

All this forces us to admit: Asset tokenization cannot rely solely on whitepapers and technical standards. It concerns a much more complex question: How can we find a credible connection between technical logic and financial reality? In the aftermath of the ICO bubble, the seed of RWA did not truly take root—but it left behind deep lessons for those who followed.

Part 3: The Onchain Financial Awakening — The Alliance of DeFi, RWA, NFTs, and the Stability Narrative

As ICOs gradually cooled off and STOs became stuck in regulatory bottlenecks, RWA also entered a period of silence. But starting in 2019, a deeper structural transformation quietly began: the rise of DeFi.

Unlike ICOs, which attracted funding through storytelling, DeFi’s boom came from financial protocols that were truly usable onchain. From MakerDAO to Aave, from Uniswap to Compound, these protocols offered composable and callable financial components—collateralization, lending, liquidity mining, even insurance and stablecoin mechanisms—all of which could be recreated and modified with code. This time, assets finally had a place to be put to use.

Centrifuge was one of the first projects in this phase that tried to integrate RWA into an onchain cash flow model. Through its Tinlake protocol, it tokenized real-world assets such as invoices and accounts receivable into NFTs, and then packaged them into MakerDAO as collateral to provide loans for small and medium-sized enterprises. A French winery was one of its early partners—by tokenizing its export receivables, it gained access to onchain liquidity and eased its financial pressure. This may have been one of the first complete loops of “real-world asset → token → DeFi liquidity pool.”

Meanwhile, the rise of NFTs quietly redefined the semantic boundaries of RWA. In 2021, a Beeple artwork sold for $69 million, elevating digital art from a “blockchain toy” to a “priced asset.” Virtual land, limited-edition game items, music rights—these ambiguously real “value-anchored items” also began to be included in the RWA narrative. At one point, the question of what counts as a real-world asset became a philosophical discussion. Some tokenized harvest rights from coffee farms; others used NFTs to represent a share in a century-old bottle of whiskey.

Under these booming narratives, Web3 began constructing what looked like a complete “RWA puzzle”: DeFi provided the capital structure, NFTs provided the symbols and trading markets, and oracles (like Chainlink) provided the pricing feeds for offchain asset data. Assets seemed able to flow, be collateralized, split, and recombined freely onchain. However, the prosperity of RWA in this stage still bore “structural asymmetry.”

First, most RWAs remained at the stage of “onchain packaging.” Legal rights, custodial mechanisms, and redemption paths were unclear. In other words, whether the asset behind a token truly existed, was claimable, or redeemable—users were always at an informational disadvantage. Second, the high-yield environment of DeFi obscured the true value logic of RWA itself—investors focused more on APY than on the underlying asset risk. Centrifuge once handled over $10 million in DAI loans, but few people seriously questioned the borrowers’ repayment capacity.

The NFT market saw even more dramatic bubbles. Collections like CryptoPunks and Bored Ape were hyped to extreme prices. Some RWA projects began to imitate this path—using artistic packaging to “empower” assets and cover up their lack of real liquidity. In some cases, even a Picasso painting was tokenized and split into tens of thousands of NFTs, yet the legal mechanisms for liquidation and ownership transfer were left undefined.

Even so, this phase remained a crucial part of the RWA development process. It was the first time RWA was proven to be more than just a token—it could become part of a protocol, composable with other financial components into a new type of asset network. The “anchoring” and “financialization” of assets began to be encoded as processes. Even though reality had yet to catch up, the technology had already advanced far ahead.

It was also during this period that more traditional institutions began to show interest in RWA. Some early explorations quietly emerged:

• The Monetary Authority of Singapore launched Project Guardian, testing tokenized fund share trading on the Polygon network.

• The platform RealT allowed U.S. retail investors to invest in real estate with as little as $100.

• Ondo Finance tokenized U.S. Treasury bonds to attract risk-averse users and received backing from Tiger Global.

These attempts signaled that RWA was no longer just an experimental offshoot in the Web3 lab—it was beginning to receive recognition from mainstream capital.

However, this attention also brought new tensions. RWA gradually became a kind of “entry ticket” for TradFi to access the blockchain. From Goldman Sachs and BlackRock to global regulators, more and more traditional financial powers were entering the onchain world through RWA—leaving behind an open question:

Is this still decentralization? Can ordinary users still gain meaningful opportunities in this structure? Or is RWA ultimately just a new financial shell designed for institutions?

There is no clear answer yet. But one thing is certain: In this stage, RWA completed its leap from fringe experimentation to mainstream financial visibility. It became more pragmatic, and more complex. Onchain assets are no longer just a byproduct of imagination—they are becoming the most “real” part of the blockchain financial system.

Part 4: Post-2022 — The Balancing Act Between Regulation, Institutions, and the Bubble

For Web3, 2022 was the year when narratives completely unraveled. The collapse of Luna, the liquidation of Three Arrows Capital, and the FTX explosion triggered a full-blown crypto winter. The trust system of the crypto market collapsed almost overnight—DeFi yields plummeted, NFT prices were slashed in half, and amidst the rubble, RWA began to regain attention.

The reason was simple: it’s backed by “real assets.” As DeFi liquidity pools were drained by arbitrageurs and stablecoin pegs kept failing, tokens labeled with “U.S. Treasuries,” “real estate,” or “corporate receivables” at least didn’t look like thin air. Institutions began favoring RWA projects as “hedge asset allocations” onchain.

That year, the tokenized U.S. Treasury market grew by over 600%, reaching $700 million. RWA-focused projects like Ondo Finance and Maple Finance gained the favor of traditional capital, including Tiger Global. On the policy side, the Monetary Authority of Singapore launched Project Guardian, testing onchain trading of fund shares, bonds, and foreign exchange, inviting institutions like JPMorgan and DBS Bank to join the pilot. More importantly, many of these pilots chose to run on Layer 2 or high-performance public chains, gradually addressing the cost and efficiency issues of onchain activity.

Regulators also began stepping in more comprehensively. The EU introduced the MiCA regulation, building a unified framework for crypto asset supervision. The U.S. SEC launched aggressive reviews targeting stablecoins and security tokens. Hong Kong released a virtual asset licensing regime, explicitly encouraging Web3 applications with “real asset backing,” such as RWA. These regulatory signals were not fully aligned, but a shared consensus was emerging: RWA could serve as a compliant pathway in regulatory views—it’s not as thoroughly disintermediated as DeFi, nor as speculative as NFTs, but rather offers a route to legitimize traditional assets onchain.

But the rising question is: Does RWA still belong to Web3?

An increasing number of RWA projects are proactively leaning toward institutions, building operating models around qualified investors, permissioned access, and offchain audits and custody. Take Backed, for example—it launched tokenized Apple corporate bonds (bIB01), with a minimum investment of $100. Though technically open to retail investors, its core custody and redemption mechanisms still rely on traditional financial institutions. Another project, RealT, under regulatory pressure, moved U.S. real estate investments into a whitelist system. While it uses NFTs to represent asset shares, the actual participation threshold is no different from Web2 finance.

Onchain data confirms this shift toward institutionalization: In 2023, the top 10 addresses holding RWA tokens typically accounted for over 80% of total supply. In other words, the distribution of RWA is highly concentrated—far from the early vision of “everyone holding real-world assets.” This stands in stark contrast to Web3’s ideals of decentralization and inclusive finance.

Moreover, the authenticity, valuation, and liquidation of offchain assets remain unresolved. While oracles like Chainlink have addressed price feed issues, custody, legal arbitration, and redemption mechanisms are still handled offchain, heavily relying on centralized institutions. For example, some RWA projects claim to have custody over real estate or gold, but in practice, it’s just a lawyer’s letter and an API link to an external platform—far from transparent auditing.

Things get even more complicated as the bubble reemerges in a different form. In early 2023, one startup attempted to bundle carbon credits, coffee harvest rights, and celebrity IP into an RWA combo pack, marketing it onchain under the banner of “sustainable yield.” This complex structure was difficult to price or redeem in secondary markets, yet gained considerable attention due to its novelty. Within just a few months, this kind of “creative RWA” became its own trend—with risk piling up accordingly.

In short, post-2022 RWA is no longer an idealist’s experiment, but a technical replication of real-world financial rules. It now has institutional and infrastructure support—but this also puts it into a new tension: the centralized logic required by regulation is starting to collide with the openness and autonomy that Web3 strives for, at the asset layer itself.

This stage of RWA is clear-eyed, but also dangerous. Its value is becoming more apparent, and its structure more stable—but at the same time, it’s increasingly looking like a new wrapper tailor-made for traditional finance, rather than the wealth redistribution mechanism once imagined by Web3.

But the story isn’t over yet. After this round of structural upgrades, RWA has left behind a new blank space: If RWA has now achieved tokenization, pricing, and compliance—can it also achieve autonomy? Can it return part of its governance and issuance rights back to users, away from institutions? This is the question that the next generation of RWA projects must answer—and it’s the exact direction that BlueX seeks to explore.

Part 5: Next-Generation RWA — What If Assets Were Alive?

Over the past decade, the development of RWA can be summarized in three major steps: bringing assets onchain, enabling asset pricing, and achieving compliance. Though each step has faced its own challenges, they have collectively shaped the basic outline of “mapping real-world assets onto the blockchain.”

But a new issue has gradually emerged — under current RWA structures, assets onchain are still "dead."

They mostly exist in static forms: a piece of real estate, a bond, a batch of gold, or a fund share. Users act as buyers or holders, with primary interactions being subscription, trading, and redemption, and occasionally staking for yield. No matter how elaborate the packaging or how complex the protocol, these are essentially digital clones of traditional assets onchain.

This mechanism has built a bridge, but hasn’t changed the financial structure itself. RWA has become a channel for institutions to enter Web3, but it’s hard to say that it has brought users governance rights, construction rights, or decision-making power. Although real-world assets have been tokenized, they haven’t become "alive."

Thus, a new question arises: What if assets weren’t just passively mapped, but actively flowing, governed, and evolving nodes in a network?

This is precisely the direction that BlueX is trying to explore — not just as a “transporter” of assets, but as a re-designer of how RWAs are expressed and operated. What it focuses on is not just “what the asset is,” but “how the asset grows onchain.”

BlueX’s design thinking differs from most current RWA projects in two fundamental ways.

First, it doesn’t build a structure based on the “asset issuer + user investor” model, but aims to create an autonomous RWA network with AI governance + community participation. The core is not “helping you find a good asset,” but rather “making onchain assets governable, composable, proposal-enabled, and even initiable.” The AI module handles asset screening, risk modeling, and valuation; while the DAO community decides asset selection, weight allocation, and yield strategies — a stark contrast to the highly centralized models of today’s RWA projects.

Second, it emphasizes the dynamism of assets. In the BlueX system, RWA is not just a collateral or yield-bearing certificate — it is a resource unit within an entire decentralized economy. Users can stake it, vote on it, set conditions to unlock its yield, or even influence future asset onboarding logic. Rather than calling this "traditional asset tokenization," it’s more like injecting assets with self-operating capabilities.

In this process, AI is no longer just an “evaluation assistant,” but becomes a core driver of onchain asset issuance. The AI module currently being developed by the BlueX team aims to provide “one-click RWA” capabilities — even users with no crypto knowledge can submit their real-world assets (e.g., real estate, farmland, leasing rights, receivables) under platform guidance, and AI will handle the asset modeling, issuance logic, risk control standards, contract generation, and onchain process — all under compliance constraints.

In the future, BlueX aims not just to be an “RWA investment marketplace,” but an autonomous asset generation network: Anyone can bring assets onchain without intermediaries, and rely on the platform for circulation, governance, and composition. The platform itself becomes a dynamically evolving RWA governance hub — integrating all types of assets including real estate, carbon credits, cultural IP, energy, and debt.

More importantly, BlueX does not shy away from the biggest challenge of RWA — asset authenticity and offchain dependency. It does not fantasize about skipping compliance and custody. Instead, within its capabilities, it prioritizes assets that are publicly disclosable, video-verifiable, and community-traceable as initial samples. For example, one of the currently launched staking products is backed by a resort project in the Philippines, with on-site video materials, registration documents, and construction records available for review. This kind of "only say what can be verified" self-discipline may not be flashy, but compared to many RWA projects that “make big promises without real assets,” it deserves more serious attention.

BlueX is not just replicating existing RWA models, but exploring a different path: How can assets not only be mapped onchain, but also become callable, governable, and evolvable components within the onchain structure?

It is not merely a mirror of the real world, but a programmable variable in onchain economic networks — a variable in the future logic of social governance, financial structuring, and asset organization.

If the past ten years of RWA were about trying to push real assets onto the chain, Then perhaps the next decade should be about letting the blockchain reshape how real assets move, generate value, and are governed.

In this process, assets may no longer be passively tagged, priced, and wrapped — but rather “come alive” as modular, evolvable structures.

This article may not provide a final answer to RWA, but we are beginning to see some promising variables worth betting on: AI-driven asset orchestration, multi-type asset structuring, one-click issuance for non-technical users, collaborative community governance, verifiable data incentives, and minimal trust assumptions. These are not just “adding tech to tokenization,” but creating the possibility for assets to evolve within Web3.

And BlueX — may just be one of the earliest explorers on this new path. But some paths are worth walking further.

Conclusion

Over the years, what Web3 has sought to reconstruct has never been just the technical structure — but the fundamental units of trust relationships and economic participation.

The RWA thread brings us back to reality: Onchain finance, in the end, must land on people.

And whether people can truly own, understand, and govern assets — that might be the real question worth answering in this so-called asset revolution.

From Colored Coins to AI governance, from gold-backed tokens to autonomous assets, the story of RWA has always been exploring the same question: What can real-world things become onchain?

But perhaps the more important question is not “can assets be tokenized” — but whether we truly own them.

In centralized systems, asset value is determined by the market, usage rights are restricted, and governance rights are rare. Even in Web3, though assets may be onchain, the ability for users to participate in their creation, configuration, management, and evolution remains an unfinished evolution.

For the past ten years, RWA has been seen as a bridge — a pathway connecting traditional finance and the crypto world. But the real challenge is this: Can this bridge carry not just institutions, but people as well?

The future of RWA may not only be about making reality tokenizable — but about turning assets themselves into structural components of the network, to be referenced, rewritten, governed, and even co-created like a living language.

If we believe that assets are expressions of social consensus, then the future of RWA is not merely a financial structural reform — but a new narrative about trust, participation, and redistribution.

References

Origins and Foundational Materials of Blockchain Technology

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Rosenfeld, M. (2012). Overview of Colored Coins. Retrieved from https://www.bitcoinx.ro/bitcoin-assets.pdf

Ethereum Foundation. (2014). Ethereum Whitepaper. Retrieved from https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/

Wood, G. (2014). DApps: Web 3.0. Retrieved from https://gavwood.com/dappsweb3.html

ICO, STO, and Security Tokens

REAL. (2017). Real Estate Asset Ledger (REAL) Project Documentation. Archived from https://www.real.markets/

Securitize. (n.d.). Digital Securities Compliance Platform. Retrieved from https://www.securitize.io/

tZERO. (n.d.). tZERO Security Token Exchange. Retrieved from https://www.tzero.com/

Ethereum Improvement Proposal. (2018). ERC-1400: Security Token Standard. Retrieved from https://github.com/ethereum/eips/issues/1411

DeFi, NFTs, and the Integration of Real-World Assets

Centrifuge. (n.d.). Tinlake Protocol for Real-World Assets. Retrieved from https://centrifuge.io/

RealT. (n.d.). Tokenized Real Estate Platform. Retrieved from https://realt.co/

Chainlink Labs. (n.d.). Decentralized Oracle Network Documentation. Retrieved from https://chain.link/

Christie’s. (2021). Beeple’s “Everydays” Auction Results. Retrieved from https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6316601

Decentraland. (n.d.). Virtual Land Marketplace and Ecosystem. Retrieved from https://decentraland.org/

Franklin Templeton. (n.d.). Blockchain-Enabled Money Market Fund on Stellar. Retrieved from https://www.franklintempleton.com/

The Compliance and Institutional Evolution of RWA

Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). (2022). Project Guardian: Tokenized Assets Pilot. Retrieved from https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2022/project-guardian

Ondo Finance. (n.d.). Institutional-Grade Tokenized Treasuries. Retrieved from https://ondo.finance/

Backed Finance. (n.d.). Tokenized Real-World Bonds (bTokens). Retrieved from https://www.backed.fi/

European Parliament. (2022). Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)733558

Chainlink Labs. (2023). Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) and DECO Privacy Oracle. Retrieved from https://chain.link/cross-chain

Industry Forecasts and Emerging Use Cases

Boston Consulting Group & ADDX. (2022). Relevance of Asset Tokenization by 2030. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/the-future-of-asset-tokenization

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ). (2023). ANZ Executes Tokenized Asset Transaction Using Chainlink CCIP. Retrieved from https://www.anz.com/institutional/insights/articles/2023-07/anz-chainlink-tokenised-assets/

Brickken. (n.d.). SME Equity Tokenization Platform. Retrieved from https://www.brickken.com/

MediBloc. (n.d.). Patient-Owned Medical Data Platform. Retrieved from https://medibloc.org/

Powerledger. (n.d.). Tokenized Renewable Energy Trading Platform. Retrieved from https://www.powerledger.io/