Why 89% of tokenized RWAs remain idle despite a $34.6 billion market: Falcon exec explains

cryptonews

Sep 05

The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle. Summary Roughly 11% of the ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Most Discussed

{"basename":"","ssrTDKData":{"titleTemplate":"%s - Tiger Brokers","title":"Tiger Brokers HK | Online Trading in stocks, bonds & ETFS","description":"Discover Tiger Brokers HK, an online trading platform for stocks&ETFs, options&futures, bonds and crypto. Open an account to enjoy low commission trading today!","keywords":"tiger trading,tiger security,tiger broker hk,tigers co ltd,tiger trade hk,tiger brokers hk,stock broker,securities broker,online brokerage,hong kong broker,hk broker,online stock trading,online trading platform,stock trading platforms,trading application,stock trading,stock trading hong kong,buying stocks in hong kong,tiger brokers","social":{"ogDescription":"Discover Tiger Brokers HK, an online trading platform for stocks&ETFs, options&futures, bonds and crypto. Open an account to enjoy low commission trading today!","ogImage":"https://c1.itigergrowtha.com/portal5/static/media/og-logo.0a0bd8dc.png","ogUrl":"https://www.atigrnest.com/news/2665351707"},"companyName":"Tiger Brokers"},"pageData":{"isMobile":false,"isTiger":false,"isTTM":true,"region":"HKG","license":"TBHK","edition":"fundamental"},"isCrawlerRequest":true,"__swrFallback__":{"@#url:\"https://stock-news.skytigris.cn/v3/news\",params:#id:\"2665351707\",edition:\"fundamental\",auth_exemption:1,,,undefined,":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2665351707?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2026-09-05 04:54","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"2665351707","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Why 89% of tokenized RWAs remain idle despite a $34.6 billion market: Falcon exec explains","media":"cryptonews","content":"<div>\n<p>The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle.\n\n\nSummary\n\n\n\nRoughly 11% of the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://crypto.news/why-89-percent-tokenized-rwas-remain-idle/\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"crypto_news_highlight","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why 89% of tokenized RWAs remain idle despite a $34.6 billion market: Falcon exec explains</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy 89% of tokenized RWAs remain idle despite a $34.6 billion market: Falcon exec explains\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2026-09-05 04:54 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://crypto.news/why-89-percent-tokenized-rwas-remain-idle/><strong>cryptonews</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle.\n\n\nSummary\n\n\n\nRoughly 11% of the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://crypto.news/why-89-percent-tokenized-rwas-remain-idle/\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"BK4588","symbol_name":"碎股","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://crypto.news/why-89-percent-tokenized-rwas-remain-idle/","article_id":"2665351707","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":{"source":"crypto_news_highlight","url":"https://crypto.news/why-89-percent-tokenized-rwas-remain-idle/","rn_cache_url":null,"directOrigin":true},"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2665351707","pubTimestamp":1788555244,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"crypto_news_highlight","name":"Crypto News"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle.Roughly 11% of the $34.6 billion tokenized RWA market is deployed in protocols.BlackRock’s BUIDL, Franklin Templeton’s BENJI and Circle’s USYC all have utilization below 1%.JAAA and reUSD have utilization rates above 97%, according to DeFiLlama.Falcon Finance examines legal claims, redemptions, liquidity, pricing, and credit quality before accepting RWA collateral.DefiLlama data shows a sharp difference between the value of tokenized assets issued onchain and the amount being used inside decentralized finance protocols.BlackRock’s BUIDL has a utilization rate of 0.64%, while Franklin Templeton’s BENJI stands at 0% and Circle’s USYC at 0.52%, according to the platform. Each product gives holders exposure to yield-bearing assets, but little of their issued value has moved into the protocols covered by DefiLlama’s utilizatio","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"crypto.news","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"BK4588":"碎股","BK4585":"ETF&股票定投概念","JAAA":"Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF"},"translate_title":"尽管市场规模达 346 亿美元，但为什么 89% 的代币化 RWA 仍然闲置：Falcon 高管解释","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"JAAA":0.88},"content_text":"The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle.\n\n\nSummary\n\n\n\nRoughly 11% of the $34.6 billion tokenized RWA market is deployed in protocols.\nBlackRock’s BUIDL, Franklin Templeton’s BENJI and Circle’s USYC all have utilization below 1%.\nJAAA and reUSD have utilization rates above 97%, according to DeFiLlama.\nFalcon Finance examines legal claims, redemptions, liquidity, pricing, and credit quality before accepting RWA collateral.\n\n\n\nDefiLlama data shows a sharp difference between the value of tokenized assets issued onchain and the amount being used inside decentralized finance protocols.\nBlackRock’s BUIDL has a utilization rate of 0.64%, while Franklin Templeton’s BENJI stands at 0% and Circle’s USYC at 0.52%, according to the platform. Each product gives holders exposure to yield-bearing assets, but little of their issued value has moved into the protocols covered by DefiLlama’s utilization measure.\nProducts created for use as collateral show a different pattern. Centrifuge’s tokenized Janus Henderson Anemoy AAA CLO Fund, known as JAAA, has reached 97.97% utilization, while Re Protocol’s reUSD stands at 97.87% and Maple Finance’s SyrupUSDT at 88.84%.\nArtem Tolkachev, chief RWA officer at Falcon Finance, told crypto.news that the gap cannot be understood from one utilization figure alone. In his view, analysts must first examine what the asset was created to do and then identify where holders are using it.\n\n“Low utilization is weak utility when a product was built and priced to be borrowed against and stays flat after launch,” Tolkachev said.\n\n“An underlying fund that is held for yield and redeems on time is doing its job at zero utilization.”\nTokenized RWA utilization requires more than one measure\nTolkachev separates utilization into two levels. At the asset level, he examines redemption speed, the party responsible for honoring redemptions, the stability of the yield, and the losses holders could face after a default.\nAt the use level, he looks at whether an asset is being held for yield, posted as collateral at a centralized exchange, or supplied to a DeFi protocol. Each route carries different terms and risks, he said, making protocol utilization an incomplete measure of total demand.\nAssets held by custodians or supplied as margin at derivatives venues may perform an economic function without appearing in DeFi utilization data. Money market funds, for example, are commonly purchased as cash-management products rather than assets that must circulate through lending pools.\nWrappers designed specifically for DeFi require a different test, according to Tolkachev. If their main purpose is to support borrowing or other onchain activity, a low utilization rate after launch can point to weak adoption.\nA similar gap has appeared at the network level. An August report found that Stellar’s RWA market had grown from about $785 million in January to more than $3 billion in July, while RWA-enabled pools on its Blend lending protocol held only slightly more than $2 million.\nRedStone attributed part of the gap to the difficulty of pricing traditional assets around the clock. U.S. Treasuries, money market funds and corporate credit do not produce continuous market prices in the same way as Bitcoin or Ether, leaving lending protocols to manage stale valuations when the underlying markets are closed.\nFalcon applies five tests before accepting RWA collateral\nBefore Falcon accepts assets such as JAAA, the JTRSY Treasury fund, or tokenized Mexican CETES, Tolkachev said its underwriting process focuses on two outcomes: how quickly the protocol can turn seized collateral into cash and how much value it could recover under stressed conditions.\nThe first test covers the token holder’s legal claim. Falcon examines whether the token provides a perfected claim on assets held through a bankruptcy-remote structure or merely an unsecured promise from the issuer. The review also considers what would happen to holders if the issuer failed.\nRedemption terms form the second test. Some tokenized money market funds can redeem directly into a stablecoin onchain, while liquidity facilities may buy fund shares at net asset value onto their own balance sheets. Other products depend on the issuer and the timetable written into the fund documents.\n“We read the documents, not the deck,” Tolkachev said. “A collateral asset you cannot exit in stress is not collateral.”\nFalcon then examines secondary-market liquidity to determine whether another buyer exists or whether redemption is the only exit. A limited secondary market can slow a liquidation or force the protocol to accept a lower price when it needs to close a position.\nThe fourth test covers the price feed, including how the asset is valued and whether the data can resist manipulation when its underlying market is closed. Credit quality completes the review through an assessment of ratings, duration, issuer exposure, and portfolio concentration.\nFalcon classifies JAAA as exposure to AAA-rated collateralized loan obligations, while JTRSY holds short-term U.S. government debt and CETES represents short-dated Mexican sovereign bills. The protocol has added JAAA and JTRSY as accepted collateral and separately integrated tokenized Mexican bills.\n“If any one of those five legs fails, it does not become collateral, however attractive the yield,” Tolkachev said.\nClosed markets increase liquidation risk for tokenized RWAs\nDeFi loans run continuously, but the securities behind many RWA tokens trade during limited hours. Tolkachev said Falcon sets collateral factors by measuring price volatility, the time needed to sell the asset, and the period during which the protocol could be unable to transact or obtain a fresh valuation.\nStructured credit and non-U.S. sovereign bills may not trade overnight or during weekends. A borrower can still approach a liquidation threshold during that period, leaving the protocol with collateral it cannot immediately sell.\nTo account for the mismatch, Falcon applies larger haircuts when an underlying market has long closures or limited secondary liquidity. Its liquidation thresholds also include a buffer for periods when the asset cannot be traded, while its pricing process may hold or discount a stale valuation instead of relying on a thin off-hours trade.\nWeekend news creates another risk because the credit or sovereign asset may reopen at a different price. Tolkachev said Falcon adds a cushion for such gaps and sizes borrowing capacity according to what the protocol could liquidate during the asset’s most difficult trading window, rather than using its full face value.\nThe issue has direct relevance for tokenized U.S. Treasuries and funds holding American government securities. Although their blockchain tokens can move at any hour, reliable prices and access to the underlying Treasury market still depend on traditional trading, settlement, and redemption systems.\nA June guide to RWA tokenization noted that putting an asset onchain does not alter its legal character. Token holders still depend on fund structures, custodians, transfer restrictions, and the laws governing the underlying claim.\nRWA underwriting capacity remains concentrated\nFew DeFi protocols accept structured credit or sovereign debt as collateral because the review requires legal, credit, and operational expertise, according to Tolkachev. Most lending protocols were built to list liquid crypto tokens with continuous exchange prices, a model that does not cover fund documents, bankruptcy claims, or issuer-managed redemptions.\nUnderwriting also requires protocols to create liquidation procedures for assets whose markets may be closed when a loan becomes undercollateralized. Since much of that work is specific to each product, Tolkachev said it cannot be fully automated.\nCapacity has consequently gathered at a small number of venues able to complete such reviews. Pools that accept assets built for collateral use can fill quickly, even as much larger tokenized funds remain outside lending and borrowing markets.\nCentrifuge offers one example of demand concentrating around an asset with a defined use. In August 2025, its total value locked crossed $1.1 billion, supported by more than $653 million in JAAA and over $392 million in its tokenized Treasury fund. At the time, JAAA was available to non-U.S. professional investors with a minimum investment of $500,000.\nTolkachev said expanding underwriting capacity would require common standards covering the legal rights attached to RWA tokens and the process for redeeming them. He also called for reliable price feeds for assets with closed-market hours and detailed disclosures covering portfolio composition, issuer exposure and concentration.\n\n\n\n\n\n                Read more:\n            \n\n                Robinhood-AMC clash may speed US stock token rules","kind":"highlight","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":false,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":false,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"isVideo":false,"video":null,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"need_login_tip":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"}}}