By Alex Lola
Chief Executive Officer
People are talking a lot about tokenization these days. Some of the information is helpful, but a lot of it is misleading or unclear. The term gets thrown around as if it’s either the magic solution to every financial inefficiency or an overhyped trend destined to fade. Neither is quite right.
In this piece, I’ll first examine and then either debunk or confirm some of the most common myths to help bring greater clarity to the topic of tokenization.
Myth #1: Tokenization is a New Concept
It might feel new, but tokenization isn’t fresh out of the lab.
In fact, the foundational ideas have been around for a while. Back in the mid-2010s, Security Token Offerings (STOs) were already exploring how to represent ownership of real-world assets (RWAs) on a blockchain. It wasn’t mainstream then, and the infrastructure wasn’t exactly user-friendly, but the seeds were planted.
What’s changed more recently is the regulatory environment. Jurisdictions like Bahrain in MENA, Switzerland and Luxembourg in the EU, along with Singapore and Hong Kong in Asia, have begun to clarify how tokenized assets can fit into traditional financial frameworks.
In parallel, some emerging markets like Brazil and Russia are carving their own paths in the digital asset space. Russia particularly has seen a significant surge with a recent Central Bank report highlighting that the total volume of tokenized assets has reached 800 billion rubles (over $10 billion USD) in Q1 2025.
This shift is what has pushed tokenization back into the spotlight. It’s more about opening doors rather than inventing something brand new.
Verdict: Debunked.
Myth #2: A Token Is Volatile Like Cryptocurrencies
This myth is surprisingly persistent. Say “token,” and people immediately think of Bitcoin or Ethereum: assets that swing wildly in value. But tokenization does not inherently mean volatility. In fact, when we’re talking about RWAs, the token is just the form. A container, basically. It’s what’s inside (real estate, art, carbon credits, shares in a private company, and so on) that determines value and stability.
So, if you’re evaluating a tokenized asset, you shouldn’t be asking, “Is this token safe?” You should be asking, “Is the asset behind it solid?” The token just makes it more transferable, perhaps more transparent. But it doesn’t magically erase risk, or on the flip side, introduce it.
Verdict: Debunked.
Myth #3: Tokenization Will Solve All Liquidity Problems
There’s a common belief that once you tokenize an asset, it becomes instantly tradable like a public stock. Reality is more nuanced.
Take a $30M aircraft leased to an airline. Through tokenization, it is split into 1,000 tokens at $30,000 each. Fractionalization lowers the entry barrier, but does it make the asset liquid? Not necessarily.
True liquidity depends on three things:
- A low enough minimum investment
- A live, functioning secondary market
- Enough buyers and sellers actually trading
Tokenization builds the rails of fractional ownership and a marketplace. But without active participation, trades don’t flow. It improves access. It increases the potential for liquidity. But it doesn’t make an asset as liquid as public equities by default. It’s a step forward, not magic.
Verdict: Debunked.
Myth #4: Tokenization Is Only for Crypto-Native Users
This was probably true a few years ago, but not today.
Early platforms were built by and for crypto enthusiasts, often with complex interfaces and little regard for traditional investors. But that’s changing fast.
Today, companies like ATME are working to remove the technical complexity behind tokenized assets, making them feel more like regular investments. You don’t need to know what gas fees are just to buy a piece of tokenized real estate. And now, you don’t have to.
While the driving technology is still evolving and the learning curve remains, it is no longer accurate to suggest that tokenization is limited to crypto-native users. That assumption is increasingly outdated, much like claiming the internet is only suitable for programmers. While technically proficient communities drove early adoption, today’s platforms are becoming more accessible, with interfaces and user experiences designed for a broader audience.
Verdict: Debunked.
Myth #5: Tokenization is a Fancy Technology That May Reduce Timeframes
There’s some truth here as tokenization can streamline certain processes.
Settlements can be faster, audits simpler, and ownership transfers more transparent. But again, it’s not a silver bullet. Bureaucracy doesn’t disappear just because you’re using blockchain technology.
Say you tokenize a bond. Sure, the transfer might happen faster on-chain, but if you still need regulatory approval or a wet signature somewhere along the way (and in many cases, you do), then the overall time savings might be modest. Helpful, yes. Game-changing? Not always.
It’s worth appreciating the efficiency gains without overestimating them. Switching from paper to email is faster, but you still have to write the message.
Verdict: Confirmed (Partially).
Moving Forward: The Real Potential of Tokenization
Tokenization is a practical tool. One that, when implemented thoughtfully, can increase access, transparency, and efficiency in the investment world. But it also needs infrastructure, regulation, and perhaps most critically, patience.
The real potential isn’t in turning everything into tokens just because we can. It lies in identifying where the current system falls short with illiquid markets, opaque ownership, high friction, and then seeing where tokenization offers genuine improvement to the broader ecosystem.