Three risk categories in real-asset tokenization (RWA)

The workshop on “Real Asset Tokenization Solutions (RWA): Balancing investor interests and risk governance,” organized by the Vietnam Blockchain and Digital Assets Association (VBA) on April 7, comes as Vietnam prepares to pilot tokenized asset exchanges under Government Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP. The resolution requires establishing operating frameworks for asset classes expected to be traded, including real assets tokenized (RWA).

Growth potential for Vietnam’s RWA market

Major General Dang Vũ Sơn, former head of the Government Cipher Bureau and Senior Advisor to the VBA, said that if tokenized assets are designed correctly, they can open a new investment channel and also function as a digital trust infrastructure for the economy in the digital era.

Nguyen Minh Hoàng, Head of RWA at VIDA (part of the VBA), cited global projections from Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which expects the global RWA market to reach USD 19,000 billion by 2033 (about 10% of global GDP). For Vietnam, the market is assessed to have significant growth potential, with expectations to reach USD 70–80 billion by 2030.

He also noted that the Real Asset Tokenization Platform (RWA platform) has been identified as one of the flagship products in the national blockchain program under Prime Minister’s Decision 2815/QĐ-TTg. Achieving these goals, he said, depends on developing the legal framework and market infrastructure linked to transparent risk governance.

RWA faces three groups of risks

Nguyen Minh Hoàng said RWA products—especially highly liquid assets such as tokenized gold—face 12 main risks, grouped into three categories: base asset risk, financial-structuring risk, and technology risk.

1) Base asset risk

Base asset risks include custody risk, the “illusion of reserve transparency,” and legal ownership risk. He said token issuance relies entirely on the custodian, while reserve audits are not continuous verification but only reflect conditions at certain moments. Token holders typically do not legally own the underlying asset directly and must rank after secured creditors, meaning that if the issuer goes bankrupt, token investors may have limited ability to recover the real asset.

2) Financial-structuring risk

Financial-structuring risks stem from intrinsic features of RWA models. Taking money upfront and buying the asset later creates a guarantee gap that investors may find difficult to identify. Token buyers may also unintentionally grant the issuer the right to choose when to buy, creating misaligned interests. In bull cycles, risks can accumulate as asset purchases are delayed. Ethical risk can arise if funds are not used for the intended purpose. Reserve fragmentation may also occur if token issuance exceeds asset backing.

3) Technology and market-layer risk

Technology and market-layer risks include both system and operational risks. Liquidity on digital platforms may be nominal and may not guarantee conversion into real assets. Redemption mechanisms may involve restrictive conditions, high costs, or long waiting times. Risks from smart contracts and underlying infrastructure can emerge during operation. Overemphasizing blockchain’s role can also lead to mispricing of the technology, since the system guarantees data but not off-chain asset verification. In addition, because the legal framework is still being developed, compliance risk remains.

Multi-layer risk controls and verifiability

Dr. Kamal Anand, CEO of BIGOD, said the focus of tokenizing any real asset should be a multi-layer risk-control framework. He emphasized that real assets must be custodied separately with clearly defined ownership, supported by independent audits and verification to ensure transparent reserves. On that foundation, blockchain records and tracks transactions, while the financial layer determines the asset’s operability.

“The challenge is not the technology, but the ability to ensure verifiability, continuous validation, and disciplined operation—these factors determine trust and safety of the model,” Dr. Kamal Anand emphasized.

Compliance, asset rights, and due diligence

RWA raises questions about asset rights, custody, and verification, requiring legal refinement, standardized procedures, and enhanced oversight.

Varun Chugh, Financial Advisor at BIGOD, argued that RWA can be traded continuously, update prices in real time, and participate in many financial activities rather than being limited to physical assets. However, he said this represents a change in asset ownership rather than a replacement for real assets. He highlighted three elements that must be clarified: custody and auditing mechanisms, the legal status of holders, and the process for acquiring collateral assets.

From a market perspective, Luong Duy Phuoc, Director of Analytics at Kafi Securities, said RWA offers a transparent and flexible trading infrastructure for real assets or rights to real assets. Linked to familiar assets such as gold, the model has attracted investor interest in Vietnam. He added that the decisive factor is not technology but risk-management capability: investors need high transparency on asset rights, collateral mechanisms, and liquidity, while issuers must maintain market trust through strict control of underlying assets, pricing methodology, and operating procedures.

For financial institutions, he said the key is to establish a clear due-diligence framework to determine which opportunities are appropriate to pursue and which require ongoing monitoring and further assessment before participation.

Authenticity between real assets and on-chain data

Dr. Do Van Thuat, Director of Blockchain Solutions and Architecture at 1Matrix, said the central challenge is ensuring authenticity between real assets and on-chain data. He argued that the issue requires integrating reliable real-world data feeds (oracles), independent audits, strict technical standards, and real-time price synchronization to sustain market trust.

The discussion concluded that regulatory compliance is essential to lead, with particular emphasis on ensuring authenticity, continuous verification, and disciplined operation to support trust and safety in RWA models.