Digital Financial Assets and Real-World Asset Tokenization: A New Vector in Capital Management

Not long ago, a private investor could allocate capital among foreign stocks, funds, and currency instruments, relying on diversification across jurisdictions and currencies. This approach was considered foundational: diversification across jurisdictions and currencies reduced risks and provided access to the global market.

Today, this model operates with considerable friction. The history of foreign securities freezes has shown that holding assets in foreign depositories is risky—you can easily lose access to your funds due to external rules and restrictions. The disconnection of banks from international payment systems has complicated cross-border settlements: the movement of funds has become dependent on multi-layered intermediary chains, compliance procedures, and operational limitations.

Currency accounts and deposits have also lost their status as neutral protective instruments—transaction costs have risen, restrictions on fund usage have emerged, and additional infrastructure risks have appeared.

As a result, the focus is shifting: what matters more is not just yield, but the controllability of assets—the ability to dispose of them without external freezes. Capital is increasingly being kept within clear jurisdictions and in instruments tied to the real economy.

Against this backdrop, interest in the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) persists, though without the previous market euphoria. Speculative digital units remain subject to volatility, while fiat-pegged settlement instruments are viewed more as a technological link—a way to reduce costs and accelerate transactions—rather than as a standalone investment vehicle.

One practical format is investment in trade contracts, where returns are generated from real goods turnover, not from price fluctuations. The principle is simple: you profit from your money working in a business, rather than from "guessing" a price increase.

What are Digital Financial Assets and RWA in Simple Terms

In practice, the terms RWA and Digital Financial Assets (DFAs) are often used interchangeably, as both relate to the digitalization of asset rights. However, they are not identical concepts: RWA is an economic and technological concept, while DFA is a legal form established within a specific national jurisdiction.

RWA (real-world assets) is the international term for the digitalization of rights to real assets and cash flows: goods, accounts receivable, real estate, trade contracts. This means a real asset (e.g., a debt or a share in a business) is converted into a digital record that can be easily traded and divided into smaller parts.

DFA (Digital Financial Assets) is a legal construct that describes the issuance and circulation of digital rights in information systems based on distributed ledger technology. Unlike RWA as a concept, a DFA is a formalized instrument with a specific regime for accounting, disclosure, and control.

On a practical level, a DFA records a claim right against the issuer. This could be an obligation to pay a fixed income or a share in the cash flow from a specific transaction. Economically, such an instrument is similar to short-term debt financing, but with a different technological accounting infrastructure.

RWA is a way to "package" an ordinary business asset (debt, goods, lease) into a digital token. Economically, this provides businesses with quick capital, credit, or insurance backed by existing assets, while offering investors access to new asset classes.

Why Use Blockchain if Brokers and Depositories Exist?

In the classical model, ownership rights and settlements pass through a chain of intermediaries—brokers, depositories, and international clearing systems. Each link adds fees, delays, and infrastructure risks.

In RWA models, part of this chain is optimized: rights are recorded in a distributed ledger, and settlements can be executed directly between participants or through digital payment instruments. Platforms act as mediators and marketplaces for communication. This reduces transaction costs and accelerates operations, while dependence on external infrastructure decreases, though it does not disappear entirely due to the retained legal and custodial framework around the underlying asset.

How Investment in Business via Tokenized Factoring Works

Instead of abstract constructs, let's consider a concrete example. A manufacturer ships goods to a retailer worth 10 million units but will only receive payment in 90 days. The manufacturer needs these funds now—to purchase raw materials and pay salaries.

Ultimately, your return is linked not to market "sentiment" but to reality: if the retailer sells the goods and pays the invoice, you realize your profit.

The key difference from "lending to a familiar sole proprietor" lies in the nature of the risk. Here, the obligation arises from an already completed supply transaction, with a confirmed goods flow and a paying counterparty. The risk shifts from the abstract solvency of the borrower to the quality of the accounts receivable: who is the buyer, what is their payment discipline, is there confirmation of shipment and acceptance?

Structuring also plays a role. In classic factoring, buyer checks, limits, insurance, and sometimes recourse to the supplier are used. This makes the risk more measurable and manageable compared to an unsecured loan.

The same logic can be realized through RWA. The claim right for a specific supply is digitized and divided into tokens, which are acquired by investors (single or pooled). Payments on the token are synchronized with the receipt of funds from the debtor. Here, blockchain is used as an accounting and rights distribution layer, while the underlying asset remains the same—accounts receivable from a real transaction.

As a result, the investor invests in business development and earns income from its real transactions, without needing to handle paperwork or communicate with suppliers personally.

How Much Can You Earn and How Are Taxes Paid?

The yield of Digital Financial Assets and RWA today can exceed that of classic deposits and most bonds. However, this higher return is always accompanied by increased credit risks and specific infrastructure threats. The tax regime for investors is based on standard personal income tax rates.

Research indicates that DFAs from banks and large corporations offer yields of 20–25% per annum. This is significantly higher than rates on corporate bonds of similar credit quality. According to international statistics, the yield on tokenized treasury bonds is 4–5% per annum. Meanwhile, strategies in private credit and factoring yield 8–15%, while the riskiest instruments can provide returns exceeding 15–20%.

Corporate bonds of large issuers offer a premium over deposits but fall short of DFAs in yield due to the stricter regulation of the debt market. The high yield of digital assets is driven by the direct participation of capital in the operational activities of firms.

A classic deposit provides minimal risk and regulatory protection for the retail investor's funds. Bonds add the credit risk of the issuer but rely on a robust settlement infrastructure. DFAs and RWA, on the other hand, combine characteristics of debt and complex structured instruments, requiring an understanding of smart contract risks and the liquidity of underlying assets.

Investing in such instruments is justified only with a thorough analysis of the nature of the underlying asset, whether it be factoring, leasing, or a loan portfolio. Taxation of profits from DFA operations is calculated as the difference between the sale price and the purchase cost. The tax payment process depends on the status of the digital platform (whether it acts as a tax agent or not).

If the platform operator is a tax agent, the personal income tax is withheld automatically, as with a regular broker. Otherwise, the investor is obliged to independently file a tax return with the tax authority. This requires using all statements and reports provided by the system to confirm the income received and the amount of documented expenses incurred.

Key Risks of RWA Investments

RWA investments are not a "free lunch." Yields are higher than classic deposits and some bonds, but this comes with a set of specific risks that must be clearly identified.

Credit Risk: Investing in RWA requires understanding that above-market yields are always accompanied by specific threats. Unlike deposits, there is no deposit insurance system, and the risk is directly tied to the business's payment discipline and the quality of collateral. In the event of an issuer default, the investor enters a complex recovery process through legal mechanisms.

Liquidity Risk: The liquidity of RWA assets is significantly lower than that of exchange-traded bonds, as the secondary market is often absent or in its early stages of formation. The investor effectively locks in capital until the token's maturity date. Early exit is only possible if there is demand on the platform, which does not guarantee the return of funds in an emergency.

Infrastructure Risk: Infrastructure risk lies in the critical dependence on the reliability of the information system operator and all related services. In the event of disruptions or cessation of the platform's operations, access to assets may be restricted. The reliability of investor rights protection in such scenarios depends on the existence of data migration plans and the legal resilience of the platform itself.