Between February and March 2026, we surveyed 150 operators across the tokenized asset ecosystem: asset managers, infrastructure providers, DeFi protocols, centralized exchanges, market makers, data platforms, researchers and many others. One response per organization. People shipping, servicing, researching or building markets for tokenized assets.

We wanted to understand what this industry actually believes, stripped of conference narratives and consensus talking points. Where operators agree, where they disagree, and where the gap between what gets discussed and what gets built is widest.

Three findings stood out.

Distribution matters more than issuance. The supply side has matured. Across the ecosystem, operators treat issuance as a solved problem. What's worth developing is the connective tissue: the integrations, venues, and workflows that move tokenized products into active use. 86% of operators agree that scaling distribution matters more than launching new products.

Composability is the real use case. Tokenized T-bills dominate today's narrative, but operators see them as a stepping stone. The primary use case they're building toward is composable products: structured strategies, collateral frameworks, and lending markets where tokenized assets act as active financial instruments rather than passive yield. That's the edge operators expect to widen over the next few years.

Technology is not itself a blocker.
Regulatory clarity and liquidity depth account for 76% of bottleneck concerns. Operators don’t think there’s a technical constraint to growing distribution. The infrastructure works. The question is whether the rules and the demand catch up.

This report reflects what we at Centrifuge hear from the people working alongside us, and it challenged some of our own assumptions.

We hope it does the same for you.

This report is based on a survey of 150 operators directly involved in shipping, operating, or servicing tokenized assets. All respondents have been active in production, piloting, or experimenting with tokenized products within the past 12 months.

Respondents span the full lifecycle of tokenized assets: issuance and structuring, distribution and trading, infrastructure, data, risk analytics, and liquidity provision. Organizations range from crypto-native startups to publicly listed financial institutions, headquartered across North America (38%), Europe (37%), Asia-Pacific (13%), and the Middle East (7%).

The survey was conducted between February and March 2026. It combines single-select opinion questions, multi-select responses, and scaled confidence ratings. All percentage figures reflect the share of total respondents unless otherwise noted.

When asked to name the single biggest benefit of onchain finance today, respondents rank programmability first at 24%, with instant settlement close behind at 19%.

Features that shaped earlier tokenization narratives, like 24/7 availability and transparency, rank much lower. The advantage operators see today is less about when assets can move, and more about what they can do once onchain.

Looking two years ahead, respondents increasingly see programmability as the defining structural advantage of onchain finance, rising to 31%.

Settlement speed, by contrast, falls from 19% to 8%, the sharpest decline of any benefit, indicating that it is seen as a current operational edge that may become standard over time. Global access rises from 12% to 19%, making it the second-largest projected benefit and reinforcing the long-term value of borderless distribution.

The shift toward programmability shows up clearly in how respondents think tokenized assets will be used. The long-term view centers on active market functions, not passive treasury allocation.

Product building blocks, balance-sheet collateral, and liquidity & trading account for the clear majority of responses, while treasury management is selected by just 9% as the primary long-term use case.

Active use cases dominate the long-term view. Together, product building blocks and balance-sheet collateral account for 66% of responses, suggesting that tokenized assets are increasingly valued for what they enable inside onchain markets, not simply for passive yield.

‍Issuers prioritize collateral and trading, not treasury management.

‍Among issuers, balance-sheet collateral and liquidity & trading rank jointly first at 36% each, while none select treasury management. For the teams launching tokenized products, the value lies in utility: borrowing, leverage, and market access, not simply holding yield-bearing assets.

With 76% of respondents citing regulation and liquidity as the main bottlenecks, the binding constraints are market structure, not technical rails. The question is no longer whether assets can be tokenized, but whether products can reach investors under clear rules and with credible liquidity. Regulatory clarity is widely cited as the big unlock, but it remains the single biggest constraint holding the market back.

The bottleneck shifts by respondent headquarters: US points to regulation, APAC to liquidity.

US-headquartered respondents are the most likely to cite regulation as the primary constraint, while APAC-headquartered respondents point more strongly to liquidity. Europe sits closer to the middle, with liquidity narrowly ahead. The constraint is no longer the rails themselves, but the market conditions around them.

Operators cite regulation as the biggest bottleneck to scale, but they do not see regulators as the stakeholder whose confidence matters most. They point first to end investors. Regulation matters because it creates the conditions for investor trust, and scale follows trust.

Liquidity is a symptom, not the root cause.

‍Operators cite liquidity as a bottleneck, but even respondents closest to liquidity, like market makers and exchanges, point first to end investors. That suggests scale depends less on market-making capacity alone and more on investor confidence strong enough to bring demand onchain.

If scale depends on attracting new investors, the next question is what operators believe actually gives them confidence. Their answer is not yield alone. Competitive returns may draw attention, but durable confidence depends more on clear investor rights and credible exits.

When thinking about end investors, respondents place the greatest weight on reliable liquidity and exit, followed by clear investor rights and then competitive yield. That suggests broader adoption depends not just on upside, but on whether tokenized products offer protections and usability that less crypto-native investors can trust. Short-term distribution incentives, by contrast, rank at the bottom.

Nearly 9 in 10 operators, across every category, company size, and geography, say the priority has shifted from product supply to distribution. That is the broadest point of consensus in the survey, wider than any single view on regulation, liquidity, or technology. The question is less whether tokenized products can be launched, and more how they reach hands, wallets, and venues.

Only 8% say launching more tokenized products should be the priority. Even among that group, liquidity is still the main concern, suggesting respondents see new issuance as a way to improve market depth and product fit, not as an end in itself. What remains open is which channels will actually carry adoption first.

Why new issuance still matters, but less than distribution

Institutional platforms lead as the integration operators expect to drive the most adoption over the next 12–18 months, but only at 31%. The top three channels capture 65% of responses, pointing to a multi-channel future rather than a single distribution winner.

Why no single channel captures more than a third: channel preference follows use case

Channel preference depends on the kind of adoption respondents expect. When they picture connected financial products, preferences spread across several channels. When they picture collateral use, they concentrate much more heavily in institutional platforms and trading venues.

Crossing a majority-onchain threshold remains a high bar, but money markets and stocks come closest. Five of six asset classes score above the midpoint, suggesting operators see broad potential, but uneven readiness across categories.

Real estate is the clearest outlier, reflecting its physical, illiquid, and jurisdiction-bound structure. Private credit sits just above the midpoint, but with the tightest clustering in the mid-range, suggesting cautious but relatively aligned expectations. Money markets show the strongest high-conviction profile, while stocks and ETFs score positively without yet reflecting breakout certainty.

Half of respondents place tokenized asset AUM in the $150B–$500B range by end-2027, while 80% cluster between $50B and $500B. The outlook points to significant growth in institutional adoption, but expectations diverge meaningfully by company headquarters and size.

How expectations diverge: