Opinion by: Kevin de Patoul, co-founder and CEO of Keyrock
There’s a certain déjà vu in crypto right now. Real-world assets (RWAs), tokenized funds and onchain treasuries are all buzzwords we’ve spoken about for years. In 2022, when hype far outpaced real adoption, a report by BCG projected that the total size of tokenized assets could reach $16 trillion by 2030. The current market cap is sitting at $50 billion in 2025.
This time, it feels slightly different, and it’s not just because giants like BlackRock are launching tokenized money market funds or Circle’s USDC becoming the de facto settlement layer for Treasury bonds onchain.
It’s because the narrative has finally collided with reality: real businesses, real cash flows and real compliance.
Yet, despite all of this momentum, one thing still drags the industry to the brink of regression: the pursuit of an idealized regulatory framework.
Progress requires iteration, not perfection
The future of finance is digital. Every asset class, from bonds to real estate, will eventually exist in a tokenized form, and when it does, it has to offer much more than a mere digital replica. Digitization will mean faster, cheaper, and more accessible markets.
None of that matters if institutions can’t allocate capital at scale. Institutions are, and always will be, allergic to uncertainty. The problem isn’t that regulators haven’t acted. It’s that the current approach prioritizes theoretical completeness over practical clarity.
Related: Stablecoin laws aren’t aligned — and big fish benefit
Universal frameworks, seamless cross-border rules and global harmonization sound good on paper. In practice, however, they’ve led to paralysis. People talk about TradFi having a “global regime.” but it’s unclear if that’s strictly true. Basel III in Europe is not the same as banking rules in the US. Crypto isn’t uniquely splintered. Global finance, in general, is siloed. Waiting for an elusive, one-size-fits-all solution will delay progress.
The reality of this fragmentation is visible across major markets. In the US, tokenized equities are clearly defined as securities. MiCA provides a welcome overarching playbook in Europe, but its limits are already evident, especially in areas like DeFi. Singapore allows tokenized bonds for institutional investors while blocking open retail participation.
These examples aren’t regulatory failures. They are proof that regulation evolves. The challenge isn’t regulatory ambiguity, but rather the absence of market infrastructure and strong demand, with rails in place but ultimately underused. Markets can work with imperfect rules. They can’t work if everyone stays on the sidelines.
The cost of waiting
Institutions don’t hesitate because they dislike blockchain. It’s because no one wants to explain to a board or regulator why they’ve backed assets that might retroactively be deemed in violation of existing laws.
Banks’ transition costs are found in dismantling and rebuilding, making it difficult to justify that overhaul for what they still consider a niche market. In some regions, you can commit capital and services with confidence. In others, even minor licensing gaps force players to sit on the sidelines.
Uncertainty doesn’t just slow adoption. Uncertainty drives up the cost of legal opinions, forces firms to ring-fence entire business units and cripples cross-border liquidity. Every jurisdiction becomes its own legal minefield. That’s more than a technology problem. That’s a deep-rooted, systemic problem with regulatory clarity.
Clarity unlocks capital, even if it’s messy
The truth is, crypto doesn’t need perfect global regulation to thrive. Traditional capital markets have operated for decades under frameworks that are far from uniform. What matters is a baseline level of clarity and consistency, enough for firms to assess and price risk. Take shadow banking: a $60 trillion system that exists alongside, not outside, formal regulation. It’s complex and imperfect, but it functions.
This isn’t about deregulation. It’s about distinguishing between necessary safeguards and unattainable idealism. Fraud prevention and investor protection matter, but they don’t require a flawless global framework.
For regulators, the path forward is prioritizing iterative clarity and publishing rules even if they evolve. Progress today is better than perfection tomorrow. For financial institutions, the most significant risk lies in falling behind. Tokenization will not wait for certainty, and agile players are already building in jurisdictions that provide workable guidance. For crypto builders, the challenge is to stop waiting for external validation and operate within the legal frameworks available today, while actively pushing for incremental improvements.
Tokenization solves real problems — if we let it
The value of tokenization isn’t just a novelty for crypto insiders. It’s about solving real problems — settlement times measured in days, not seconds, capital tied up in reconciliations and asset classes locked behind jurisdictional walls.
Stablecoins have shown the blueprint. When regulators provide clarity, even imperfect clarity, adoption explodes. Tokenized securities can follow — but only if we stop treating regulation as a binary choice between “perfect” and “broken.” Some critics may see this as settling for mediocrity, but iterative progress is how financial systems mature.
From theory to reality
Crypto has moved past speculative memes. We’re dealing with cash-positive businesses moving real money onchain. If there was ever a moment to embrace iterative progress, it’s now. The companies willing to operate in a clear, if evolving, regulatory environment will define the next chapter of finance.
Progress equals momentum, not perfection. If the industry is forced to wait on the fringes for frameworks in totality, the digital asset revolution will stay frustratingly theoretical.
Opinion by: Kevin de Patoul, co-founder and CEO of Keyrock.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
