Tokenization is redefining asset ownership—fractionalizing real estate, digitizing commodities, and bringing private credit on-chain. But as the market matures, hidden exposures have surfaced. From governance failures and untested legal frameworks to counterparty defaults and cyber vulnerabilities, these risks mirror traditional finance in digital form.

Understanding how to manage and transfer them is what separates sustainable innovation from speculative hype.


Real Estate: When Tokens Meet Title, Tenants, and City Hall

Tokenized property promised liquidity and democratized access, but real-world cases show the challenges of bridging on-chain ownership with off-chain obligations.

Case: Elevated Returns – Tokenising US & Southeast Asia Property via Thailand

Elevated Returns began tokenising high-value property using Thailand as a regulated pilot: the issuer secured an issuance licence, digital-asset management licence and secondary market licence from Thailand’s regulators.

This exposed a structural flaw: token holders rely entirely on the platform’s governance and operational integrity. When those fail, the token’s legal and financial protections evaporate.

Case: Singapore / Asia fractional real estate debate

In June 2025, a Singapore ULI panel discussed platforms like Fraxtor (licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore) that use blockchain to tokenize real estate assets. Minimum commitments remain high (≈ S$ 25,000) and liquidity remains limited.


Commodities: Custody, Transparency, and Redemption Reality

Tokenized commodities highlight the balance between blockchain transparency and real-world custodial trust.

Case: Dubai / UAE – Tokenised Property via the Platform Prypco Mint

While technically MENA, this case is highly relevant to Asia-Pacific regional investors: in June 2025, AsiaIPLaw covered how Dubai’s land-department-backed Prypco Mint platform launched tokenised ownership of penthouse installments (US$ 540 minimum) for a Dubai skyscraper, working via the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority.


Private Credit: On-Chain Loans, Off-Chain Defaults

Tokenization of credit pools has opened access to institutional-grade lending—but also reintroduced credit and liquidity risk under new names.

Case: China / Hong Kong – Regulatory Pause on RWA Tokenisation

In September 2025, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) reportedly advised several Chinese brokerages to pause their real-world-asset (RWA) tokenisation business in Hong Kong. 

Case: India / GIFT City – Tokenised Credit + Real-Estate Pilot

In India, research by Nishith Desai Associates (2025) outlines how tokenisation of real-estate and loans in GIFT City is underway—but warns of enforcement, cross-border legal, and taxation exposures.


Turning Exposure into Resilience

Across these cases, the recurring theme is: tokenisation changes form, but risks endure and sometimes amplify. Counterparty risk, custody risk, liquidity risk, regulatory risk: the region adds extra layers of cross-border/regime ambiguity.

The new frontier of finance demands both technical precision and risk transfer discipline.

At Continuum, we help tokenization projects and digital asset businesses build the institutional safeguards they need to scale responsibly. Our insurance-led frameworks protect both the underlying assets and the technology layer through:

Together, these help turn tokenisation projects from experiments into resilient financial structures so innovation doesn’t outpace protection.


Conclusion

Tokenisation is opening doors but success will go to the projects that treat risk transfer as a core feature—not an afterthought.

If you’re tokenising assets, issuing credit, or operating a platform in Asia, the opportunity is real but so is the risk. The right insurance architecture isn’t optional; it’s foundational.

Contact us today to build an insurance framework for your tokenization project.