Real world asset tokenization has emerged as a practical capital formation tool rather than a pathway to enhanced secondary market trading, according to new research from tokenization platform Brickken. The fourth quarter 2025 survey reveals institutional priorities that diverge sharply from the 24/7 trading visions promoted by major exchanges.
The survey findings challenge conventional narratives about tokenization’s primary value proposition. More than half of respondents, representing 53.8% of surveyed issuers, identified capital formation and fundraising efficiency as their principal motivation for tokenizing assets. Only 15.4% cited liquidity needs as their main driver, while 38.4% indicated that liquidity was not required for their business model.
Exchange Ambitions Meet Market Reality
These priorities create an interesting disconnect with recent announcements from major U.S. exchanges. CME Group plans to launch around the clock trading for crypto derivatives by May 29, while both the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq have outlined strategies for continuous tokenized stock trading. The timing suggests exchanges are building infrastructure ahead of demonstrated issuer demand.
Jordi Esturi, Chief Marketing Officer at Brickken, frames this gap in evolutionary terms rather than as a fundamental mismatch. “Exchanges increase revenue by increasing trading volume, and extending trading hours is a natural lever,” he explained. The focus reflects how exchanges view tokenization as a business model expansion opportunity rather than a response to specific issuer requirements.
Current market participants remain largely focused on establishing operational foundations rather than optimizing trading venues. According to the survey, 69.2% of respondents have completed tokenization processes and are operationally live, while 23.1% remain in development phases and 7.7% are still planning implementations.
Regulatory Friction Dominates Implementation
Compliance challenges overshadow technical hurdles for most tokenization initiatives. The survey data shows 84.6% of participants experienced some form of regulatory friction, with 53.8% reporting that regulation directly slowed their operations. An additional 30.8% faced partial or contextual regulatory challenges during implementation.
By comparison, only 13% of respondents identified technology or development issues as their primary implementation challenge. This regulatory burden shapes how issuers approach tokenization strategy and timeline planning.
Alvaro Garrido, founding partner at Legal Node, observes that compliance considerations now drive project architecture from inception rather than serving as a post launch consideration. “We see an increasing demand for legal structures tailored to the specific project needs and underlying technology,” he noted.
The regulatory environment influences not just implementation timelines but also strategic priorities. Many issuers view their current phase as validation focused, during which they establish regulatory structures, test investor appetite, and digitize issuance processes before pursuing secondary market opportunities.
Asset Diversification Beyond Real Estate
The survey reveals tokenization activity extending well beyond the real estate sector that dominated early implementations. Real estate now accounts for just 10.7% of assets tokenized or planned for tokenization, a significant shift from historical patterns.
Equity and shares represent the largest category at 28.6% of tokenization activity, while intellectual property and entertainment related assets comprise 17.9%. This diversification reflects growing institutional comfort with tokenization across multiple asset classes.
Industry distribution among survey participants spans technology platforms at 31.6%, entertainment and private credit each at 15.8%, and smaller but notable representations in renewable energy, banking, carbon assets, aerospace, and hospitality sectors. The breadth suggests tokenization has moved beyond experimental phases in niche markets.
Patrick Hennes, head of digital asset servicing at DZ PRIVATBANK, emphasizes infrastructure over ideology in this evolution. “The real bridge between traditional finance and decentralized finance is not ideological,” he said. “It is issuance infrastructure that translates regulatory requirements, investor protection and asset servicing standards into programmable systems.”
Liquidity Timing and Market Development
While many issuers indicate liquidity is not immediately required, the survey suggests this reflects strategic timing rather than permanent disinterest. Nearly half of respondents, representing 46.2%, expect to pursue secondary market liquidity within six to twelve months.
This timeline aligns with what Esturi describes as the difference between optional and mandatory liquidity. Many private market issuers operate on extended time horizons where immediate trading capability provides limited value compared to capital access and operational efficiency improvements.
The infrastructure layer approach resonates with established players who have successfully scaled tokenized offerings. Ondo, which manages over $2 billion in tokenized assets after beginning with U.S. Treasuries, focuses on assets with established price discovery mechanisms and clear valuation frameworks rather than pursuing tokenization for its own sake.
Chief Strategy Officer Ian de Bode emphasizes practical considerations in asset selection. “You tokenize something either to make it easier to access or to use it as collateral,” he explained. “Stocks fit both, and they price like assets people actually understand, unlike a building in Manhattan.”
The survey results suggest the tokenization market has entered a maturation phase where practical business applications drive adoption rather than technological novelty. As regulatory frameworks continue developing and operational infrastructure expands, the focus on capital formation over trading optimization may prove prescient for long term market development.