platform_icon platform_icon
Upcoming Events Join Our Network
Upcoming Events Join Our Network

Tag: Digital Assets

A London Summit Moment: When Wall Street Admits Blockchain Might Actually Work

Posted on by stg3

The RWA & Stablecoins London Summit 2026 revealed something major—traditional finance is quietly moving billions into tokenized yield. Here’s what just changed.

The Shift That Matters

If you were in London last month for the RWA & Stablecoins Summit, you witnessed something rarely seen in financial markets: the moment the old guard stops dismissing the new guard and starts taking notes.

The panel on tokenized yield wasn’t some fringe crypto discussion. It featured BlackRock’s digital assets team. Franklin Templeton’s European lead. State Street’s collateral management head. Sitting alongside two blockchain platforms that are actually deploying this stuff at scale.

That’s not a debate anymore. That’s a conversation about implementation.

Why Now Matters

Five years ago, tokenized yield was a theoretical whitepaper exercise. Three years ago, it was “an interesting use case.” Today, it’s $500 million in deployed assets in Brazil alone—growing to a target of $1 billion this year.

The London Summit’s timing wasn’t random. It happened at the exact inflection point where:

  • Money market funds on blockchain are proven winners (over $7.8 trillion in traditional markets, now tokenized versions scaling)
  • Emerging markets are moving faster than developed ones (Brazil’s regulatory clarity is outpacing London and New York)
  • Infrastructure is actually standardizing (not in theory—in actual deployments)
  • Institutions are past the “should we?” question and deep in the “how do we?” questions

“This isn’t crypto versus finance anymore,” one panelist noted. “This is finance figuring out how to work at blockchain speed.”

Why This Matters More Than You Think

The typical narrative: “Blockchain makes things cheaper and faster.” Fine. But that’s not what’s driving billions of dollars in institutional capital into tokenized yield.

The real story: Assets that were previously trapped in geographical and institutional silos can suddenly move at the speed modern markets demand.

In Brazil, yield-bearing assets—card receivables, real estate deals, corporate debt—have been locked behind banking infrastructure that kept retail investors out. Tokenization didn’t invent these yields. It opened the door to participate in them.

Yields of 18-25% annually are suddenly accessible to people who previously could only get 5% in a government savings account. That’s not innovation for innovation’s sake. That’s solving a genuine problem.

Similarly, a collateral manager at a digital-native hedge fund can now:

  • Hold a yield-bearing asset
  • Use it as instant collateral for trading
  • Access it 24/7
  • Move it across venues in minutes

Try doing that in traditional markets. You’ll spend months navigating custody agreements, settlement procedures, and compliance documentation.

The London Context: Why Geography Matters

Why is this conversation happening in London right now?

Because London is where it should be happening. London hosts State Street, BNY Mellon, Euroclear, and Europe’s largest asset managers. It’s the epicenter where regulatory bodies are actually making decisions about digital asset frameworks.

Yet the panel revealed something uncomfortable: the regulatory clarity isn’t in London yet. It’s in Singapore, the US, and surprisingly, in Brazil.

That gap is the real story. Europe is having the conversation. But the infrastructure is being built elsewhere while regulators consult.

For London institutions, this raises an urgent question: Do we lead here, or do we import frameworks built by competitors in faster-moving jurisdictions?

The Emerging Market Plot Twist

Here’s what disrupted the traditional assumptions: emerging markets are scaling this faster than developed markets.

XDC Network’s $500 million-to-$1-billion trajectory in Brazil isn’t because Brazil has better technology. It’s because:

The problem is more acute. A retail investor in São Paulo facing a 10% yield gap (government bonds at 15%, retail savings at 5%) has real urgency.

Legacy infrastructure isn’t entrenched. Brazil can design tokenized asset systems from scratch rather than retrofitting them onto 50 years of existing infrastructure.

Regulatory bodies are building frameworks, not defending incumbents. When regulators are setting rules for the first time, they can be surprisingly pragmatic.

This is the plot twist nobody expected: Emerging markets will lead on tokenized infrastructure, not follow it.

The US and Europe built tokenized infrastructure to optimize existing products. Brazil is building it to create access to products that were previously institutional-only.

Which trajectory scales faster? History suggests the latter.

The Real Timeline (Not the Hype Timeline)

The panel’s honest assessment: genuine infrastructure is 2-3 years away, not months.

This matters because institutions at the summit are planning for 2028-2030, not 2026. They’re not expecting immediate revolution. They’re planning for genuine transformation once infrastructure standardizes.

The roadmap looks like this:

2024-2026: Digital assets are experiments. Money market funds prove the model works. Institutions run pilots.

2026-2028: Standardization accelerates. KYC/AML infrastructure, custody standards, settlement finality become interoperable. Real institutional money enters.

2028-2031: Market structure changes. New use cases emerge that were previously impossible. Brazilian leverage rules change. Principal/coupon strips become liquid. Genuine financial innovation happens.

2031+: What’s “tokenized” becomes just “assets.” The distinction disappears because the infrastructure is universal.

That’s a slower timeline than crypto enthusiasts predict, but faster than traditional finance usually moves.

What Institutions Actually Care About

Forget “blockchain” and “tokenization” for a moment. What actually matters to the institutions in that London room?

Collateral efficiency. Moving assets instantly, using them as collateral without settlement friction, rebalancing positions intraday—these are worth money. Significant money.

Access to yield. $270 trillion in traditional markets is controlled by institutions. But what about the $2-3 trillion in emerging market receivables, private credit, and alternative yields that’s currently trapped behind inefficient infrastructure? Tokenization opens that door.

Regulatory compliance. This one surprises people, but institutions actually want clearer rules. Tokenization forces jurisdictions to define what’s legal and what isn’t. That clarity is valuable.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Fees

Everyone assumes blockchain will compress fees. And it will—eventually.

But here’s what the panel revealed: in the short term, tokenized assets often command premium fees because they do things traditional assets can’t.

A tokenized money market fund yielding 5.2% at 12 basis points beats a traditional fund yielding 5.2% at 5 basis points if the tokenized version lets you use it as collateral. The fee premium is justified by functionality.

That only changes when tokenized assets become standardized and commoditized. Until then, utility beats price.

This is crucial for startups and asset managers: you don’t have to race to zero fees. You have to build genuine functionality that justifies premium pricing while infrastructure standardizes.

What This Means (Actually)

The London Summit’s real message isn’t “blockchain is coming to finance.” It’s more subtle:

Traditional finance is quietly admitting it needs to move faster, and blockchain infrastructure is the mechanism.

Not because blockchain is ideologically superior. But because the speed and efficiency it enables solves real problems that traditional infrastructure makes unnecessarily hard.

For institutions: this is your window to build infrastructure before standards lock in. The companies that define the standards win.

For emerging markets: you’re actually ahead. Your regulatory flexibility is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Build confidently.

For investors: watch infrastructure plays, not just asset issuance. The infrastructure layer is where genuine value accumulates long-term.

For regulators (yes, they read articles): the jurisdictions moving fastest on clear rules will attract the most capital. Hesitation gets you irrelevance.

The Real Conversation

The London conversation is how you know this isn’t hype anymore. It’s the moment institutions stop asking if this works and start planning how to profit from it.

That’s when things get real.

The Tokenized Yield Inflection Point: What the London Summit Revealed About the Real Timeline Yield Inflection Point

Posted on by stg3

A panel of practitioners building tokenized yield infrastructure just admitted something important: this is working, but not the way hype predicted. Here’s what they actually believe.

The Real Assessment

At the RWA & Stablecoins London Summit 2026, five people building tokenized yield infrastructure got on a panel to discuss what’s actually happening versus what people predicted.

Their honest assessment was surprisingly grounded:

Tokenized yield is real. But it’s slower, more regulated, and more institutional than anyone predicted three years ago.

That’s not a failure. It might actually be why it will last.

1. Boring Wins (And That’s The Point)

Nobody predicted that money market funds would be the killer app for tokenized yield.

They’re not exciting. They don’t disrupt anything. They don’t “unlock yield” or “democratize access.” They just make an existing product work better on blockchain.

Yet they’ve scaled from zero to billions in AUM in two years. Institutional hedge funds actively prefer tokenized MMFs over traditional ones—not because they’re cheaper, but because they’re more useful.

The lesson: The most revolutionary application is solving an annoying operational problem for institutions, not disrupting the entire system.

This suggests the next wave of tokenized assets won’t be the exciting ones. They’ll be the boring ones that solve real problems. Private credit moving onchain won’t be about “democratizing access.” It’ll be about “collateral managers can now use alternative assets as instant collateral without moving them between venues.”

Not revolutionary. Just useful.

2. Regulation Isn’t The Enemy—It’s The Requirement

Everyone told founders: “Get approval from one regulator, then scale globally.”

What actually happened: Each jurisdiction requires its own regulatory approval, and that regulatory approval is the timeline for scaling.

Franklin Templeton didn’t use distribution as their expansion strategy. They used regulation. US approval, then Luxembourg, then Singapore, then BVI. Each regulatory victory unlocked distribution naturally.

This matters: You can’t build once and go global. You build once, then repeat the regulatory process in each major jurisdiction.

That’s slow. It’s also safe. It’s how you ensure the infrastructure is actually robust. The founders who understand that regulation is part of product development (not a constraint on it) are the ones scaling.

3. Emerging Markets Are Ahead (And It’s Not Close)

Brazil’s $500 million-to-$1-billion tokenized receivables market is outpacing developed market tokenization by an order of magnitude.

Why? Because Brazil is solving a problem (retail access to institutional yields). Developed markets are optimizing existing products.

Urgent problems get solved faster than optimization.

This has implications: The institutions building tokenized asset infrastructure in Brazil right now are building the blueprints for everywhere else. The toolkit for onchain compliance, regulatory integration, and native-born digital assets is being built in São Paulo, not New York.

4. Utility Defeats Price (For Now)

The default assumption: blockchain makes things cheaper, therefore fees compress immediately.

What’s actually happening: Tokenized assets with real additional utility command premium fees while those utilities matter.

A tokenized MMF at 12 basis points beats a traditional MMF at 5 basis points if the tokenized version lets you use it as instant collateral.

That premium doesn’t last forever. But it lasts as long as the utility is genuinely unique, competitors haven’t standardized yet, and users actually value the functionality.

For money market funds, those conditions existed for about 2 years. For other asset classes, that premium period might last longer or shorter depending on how differentiated the utilities are.

The takeaway: Don’t assume you have to race to zero. But also don’t assume premium pricing lasts forever.

5. Infrastructure Takes Longer Than Anyone Admits

The honest timeline from people actually building this:

2024-2026: Interface innovation. New ways to access assets, mostly using traditional infrastructure underneath.

2026-2028: Standardization. KYC/AML, custody, settlement standards begin aligning.

2028-2031: Structural innovation. New asset classes designed natively for tokenization. Genuine leverage and complex structures become possible.

2031+: Replacement innovation. Some traditional infrastructure becomes redundant.

We’re in Phase 1, moving into Phase 2. People asking “when do institutions adopt this at scale?” are asking a 2029-2031 question, not a 2026 question.

If you’re a founder, your timeline for profitability isn’t 18 months—it’s 3-5 years while infrastructure matures. If you’re an investor, tokenized yield companies won’t be unicorns in 24 months. They’ll be meaningful businesses in 5-7 years.

What Nobody Explicitly Said But Was Obviously True

Institutional money isn’t coming until infrastructure is genuinely custody-safe. You can’t move institutional capital on promises. You can only move it on proven infrastructure.

Fees won’t compress as fast as people expect because standardization takes longer. Every new jurisdiction, every new asset class, every new custody arrangement is custom work.

The real bottleneck isn’t technology. It’s getting regulatory approval and aligning institutional infrastructure. Technology is solved. Politics and coordination are hard.

Emerging markets will lead because they don’t have to preserve legacy systems. This isn’t a criticism of developed markets—it’s just how institutional infrastructure evolves fastest where least constrained.

DeFi will exist alongside institutional tokenized yield, not replace it. They serve different customer needs. Both thrive.

The Practical Roadmap

If you’re participating in tokenized yield (as founder, investor, or institution), here’s what the next 3 years look like:

2026: Expanded experimentation. More institutions deploy tokenized yield pilots. Brazil’s market deepens. Leverage regulation clarifies.

2027: Genuine institutional scale. Serious AUM enters tokenized products. Leverage becomes available in key jurisdictions. Native-born tokenized assets move from pilots to production.

2028-2029: Infrastructure becomes genuinely interoperable. Institutional adoption accelerates. Fee compression begins on standardized products while new utilities command premiums.

2029-2030: Secondary market creation. Tokenized yield products become tradeable on genuine secondary markets. Leverage strategies become sophisticated.

That’s the realistic roadmap, not the hype version.

Who Wins

Founders who:

  • Solve specific operational problems (not theoretical ones)
  • Get regulatory approval right (not as an afterthought)
  • Build for institutional requirements (custody, compliance, audit trails)
  • Stay focused on one jurisdiction until standardization allows expansion

Institutions that:

  • Move early but move cautiously
  • Build infrastructure during the standardization phase
  • Learn from emerging markets
  • Understand the 5-7 year timeline to scale

Emerging markets that:

  • Design infrastructure natively (not as retrofit)
  • Keep regulatory frameworks flexible
  • Allow leverage and complex structures early
  • Become templates for elsewhere

The Unsexy Truth

The honest takeaway from the London Summit was surprisingly boring:

This works, it’s scaling, but it’s not revolutionary. It’s institutional evolution.

Not “blockchain replaces everything.” Not “disruption is here.” Just “financial institutions are gradually adopting better infrastructure because the old infrastructure is inefficient.”

That’s boring. It’s also why it will actually stick around. Revolutionary narratives grab attention. Institutional adoption compounds wealth over decades.

The Real Test

Here’s how you know this is real: Traditional financial institutions are investing resources and capital to understand it, even though they have zero incentive to promote something that might displace them.

When incumbents are forced to adopt your innovation because their clients demand it, that’s real.

The Question That Matters

Everyone asks: “When will blockchain replace traditional finance?”

The better question: “When will blockchain become the operational infrastructure beneath traditional finance?”

The answer: 3-5 years from now, if institutions execute and regulators stay reasonable.

That’s not revolutionary. It’s just gradual evolution. And in finance, gradual evolution is how trillions actually move.

Navigating the Regulatory Maze: Key Insights from the RWA London Summit

Posted on by stg3

The Surprising Truth About Digital Asset Regulation

The most revealing insight from the “Digital Asset Regulation: The Next Chapter” panel at the RWA London Summit wasn’t about new frameworks or compliance requirements – it was the startling admission that the entire regulatory landscape may be fundamentally misaligned with the nature of digital assets.

As Alex Royle, Co-founder and Chief Regulatory Officer at Core Prime, boldly stated:

“Regulators are going to need to start understanding that there probably needs to be a slightly different social contract that they have with investors. ” The real issue, he explained, isn’t decentralization but disintermediation – “Regulation is something that bites at the intermediary almost entirely.“

In a world where disintermediated finance is increasingly accessible, regulators face an uncomfortable reality: no regulatory framework can prevent retail consumers from accessing DeFi. “The internet exists,” Royle pointed out bluntly.

The European Experiment

The panel, featuring compliance and regulatory leaders from Solidus Labs, B2C2, Cor Prime, and Galaxy Digital, examined MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) – the EU’s comprehensive regulatory framework – as a test case for global regulation.

Oumou Ba, Head of Compliance at B2C2, highlighted three key impacts of MiCA:

  1. Standardization of the market, boosting institutional confidence
  2. A harmonized framework across 27 EU member states
  3. Enhanced investor protection through clear rules for stablecoins and market abuse

However, not everyone saw MiCA as a perfect model. Royle pointed out that the EU has produced “15 to 20 times the amount of words written to explain the primary text” – indicating the challenges of implementing a fixed framework in a rapidly evolving ecosystem. “Mica is a regulation, and within pieces of Mica, it defers directly to directives,” he noted, questioning how supervisory convergence would work in practice.

The Prudential Regulation Gap

Perhaps the most significant regulatory hurdle identified by the panel – and one that’s received surprisingly little attention – is prudential regulation. This critical area determines how financial intermediaries dealing with digital assets will be held accountable by regulators.

“The biggest regulatory hurdle that we need to get over, we haven’t really addressed yet. That is prudential regulation,” Royle emphasized. “There’s a huge shoe to drop still as to whether or not a prudential regulator… is going to make any of these business models viable.”

Chris Smith from Galaxy Digital reinforced this concern: “If you’re taking a native token in a particular blockchain, a Bitcoin as collateral… it’s very punitive” under current regulatory capital requirements. This creates a significant barrier for institutional adoption.

Building a Global Strategy

When asked about developing regulatory strategies, the panelists emphasized that jurisdictional choices must follow business plans, not precede them.

“Finding a jurisdiction is really having a good balance between the compliance but also the business,” Ba noted. This includes considering talent availability, regulator relationships, and customer base.

Royle pointed out that many crypto firms lack well-considered jurisdictional marketing strategies: “There’s probably very few countries globally that actively ban activities… but that doesn’t allow you to market cross border. Where a lot of crypto firms get found out, get fined, get caught…is that they say ‘Well, I’m regulated in the UK. I’ve got an FCA license. What do you mean I can’t call someone in Australia and sell them some crypto?'”

The Path Forward

Looking ahead, the panel identified several critical developments needed to foster adoption:

  • Global Harmonization: Equivalence between regulatory frameworks in the UK, EU, and US is essential.
  • Asset Management Clarity: Regulatory certainty for asset managers would bring significant liquidity to the market.
  • New Regulatory Paradigm: Rather than trying to prevent access to DeFi, regulators should support regulated firms to intermediate it safely.
  • Industry Standards: The digital asset industry needs to mature and establish its own standards rather than waiting for regulators.

Delphine Forma, moderating the panel, emphasized this point: “On DeFi also as an industry, we should mature. I think the market is still very immature when we see whatever has happened during the last few months with the launch of those meme coins and insider trading going on, market manipulation. As an industry, we have this opportunity to build up standards and come up to the regulator as a growing up adult in the room.“

As Ba concluded, “The technology is here to help… what the technology can do in terms of compliance controls is absolutely fantastic.”

The Bottom Line

The panel made it clear that we’re at a critical juncture in digital asset regulation. Traditional regulatory approaches that rely on controlling intermediaries face fundamental challenges in a disintermediated financial system. The most successful frameworks will be those that adapt to this new reality rather than fighting against it.

For financial institutions exploring digital assets, understanding these regulatory dynamics isn’t just about compliance – it’s about identifying viable business models in a rapidly evolving landscape.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The “Digital Asset Regulation: The Next Chapter” panel at the RWA London Summit 2025 brought together an exceptional group of regulatory experts to discuss the evolving landscape of digital asset regulation. Moderated by Delphine Forma, Policy Lead at Solidus Labs, the panel featured Oumou Ba (Head of Compliance at B2C2), Alex Royle (Co-founder and Chief Regulatory Officer at Core Prime), and Chris Smith (Chief Compliance Officer at Galaxy Digital). The RWA London Summit itself gathered over 200 senior executives from institutions including Fidelity, State Street, LSEG, and BNY Mellon to explore the future of tokenized real-world assets across seven expert panels.

Blockchain Executives Weigh In: Circle’s IPO Sparks Mixed Investment Sentiment

Posted on by stg3

April 3, 2025

In a recent survey conducted among our exclusive community of blockchain and Real World Asset (RWA) executives, interesting perspectives emerged regarding Circle’s upcoming initial public offering (IPO). The stablecoin giant recently filed for an IPO following a substantial $1.7 billion windfall from its stablecoin reserves.

Survey Results: To Invest or Not to Invest?

Our community poll asked a straightforward question: “Would you buy Circle following IPO?” The results revealed divided opinions among industry leaders:

  • 56% of respondents see tremendous growth potential, selecting “Yep, the growth opportunities are huge”
  • 44% of respondents expressed hesitation, with responses split between concerns about competition from other stablecoins and commitments to alternative investments

Market Context

Circle, the company behind the USDC stablecoin, is seeking approval to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “CRCL.” This move comes at an interesting time for the stablecoin sector, which has seen increasing competition and regulatory scrutiny.

Expert Commentary and Financial Analysis

Several community members provided insights that help contextualize these results:

An industry leader (former Morgan Stanly) succinctly observed that “Yield is key” – highlighting how declining interest rates could potentially make Circle’s business model less attractive to investors. This sentiment was echoed by others who mentioned that “declining rates makes it less attractive.”

A particularly detailed analysis was shared by one executive from a post by @TheOneandOmsy that raised several red flags about Circle’s IPO filing:

  • Gross margins are declining significantly, dropping from 59.9% in 2022 to 39.3% in 2024 (a 33% decrease over two years)
  • High operational costs, with over $250 million annually in compensation and an additional $140 million in G&A expenses
  • USDC circulation showing stagnant growth (43,554 in 2022 vs 43,857 in 2024)
  • Interest rates, which drive core income, have likely peaked and are expected to decrease (with a “90% chance of 2 cuts this year”)
  • A price-to-earnings ratio of 32x for 2024 earnings is considered expensive given the company’s loss of “mini-monopoly” status and structural growth challenges
  • Regulatory concerns as the “core US market being deregulated and banks + FIs about to crash the private party”

The analysis concludes that the IPO “feels like a hail mary for some liquidity before the squad rolls in” – suggesting the timing may be opportunistic rather than strategic for long-term growth.

Looking Ahead

As Circle moves forward with its IPO process, these mixed sentiments from industry insiders highlight both the optimism surrounding stablecoin infrastructure and the practical concerns about yield generation in a potentially lower interest rate environment.

The IPO will be closely watched as a barometer for how traditional markets value crypto-native financial infrastructure companies. With Circle’s stablecoin serving as a crucial bridge between traditional and decentralized finance, its public market performance could have significant implications for the broader blockchain ecosystem.

This blog post is based on an internal survey of blockchain and RWA executives and represents their personal investment perspectives rather than financial advice.