This is a summary of one research paper. For our analysis, read the newsletter →
Papers › The RWA liquidity myth
The RWA liquidity myth
When Token Transfers Do Not Mean Liquidity in Tokenized Real-World Assets
Emre Atay Tümer, Rischan Mafrur · submitted 5 Oct 2026
Practical takeaway
- On-chain transfer volume for tokenized funds mixes mints, burns, issuer operations and genuine investor trades, so headline turnover overstates real trading.
- Address concentration also misleads: one large wallet may be a pool or intermediary holding for many investors.
- When you read RWA dashboards or pitch decks, ask for turnover after removing issuance and issuer flows, and for holder counts that look through intermediaries.
- Transfer activity is evidence about liquidity-related activity, not a measure of market liquidity; do not treat it as a proxy for exit liquidity.
Original abstract
On-chain transfer volume is often used to describe activity in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), although recorded transfers may reflect very different economic functions, including token creation, destruction, issuer-related operations, and movements between other addresses. Ownership measures face a similar problem because a large address balance may belong to a pool or intermediary that represents multiple investors. We address these two measurement problems by decomposing transfer activity and making ownership coverage explicit. Transfer turnover is calculated before and after observable event categories are separated, using the same asset, observation window, and supply denominator. For ownership, we compare concentration measured against total supply with concentration among the addresses that remain after identified intermediaries are excluded. Using Ethereum-based tokenized funds from December 2025 to August 2026, we find that transfer classification can materially change measured turnover. We also show that removing an intermediary can lower concentration when measured against total supply while concentration among the remaining addresses increases. Transfer activity and address concentration need to be interpreted with their underlying transaction functions and ownership coverage in mind. These measures provide evidence about liquidity-related activity, but they do not directly measure market liquidity. The code and data used in the analysis are available at this https URL.
Paper details
- Authors
- Emre Atay Tümer, Rischan Mafrur
- Source and ID
- arXiv 2610.05873
- Primary category
- cs.CE · Tokenization & RWAs
- Last verified
- 18 Oct 2026
From the newsletter
More in the series →Related editions of Tokenization Architect, in English.
Anatomy of a Tokenized Livestock Deal, Step by Step
Unlock Premium to read the full edition. Subscribe
All papers
- AI cites the right authority but decides without it: Cited but Not Consulted: A Counterfactual Audit of Legal Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness
- PARCEL: phantom citations: When Citations Mislead? A Claim-Level Benchmark for Legal Hallucination Detection