This week, three of the biggest names in finance made clear that tokenization is no longer an experiment. [Goldman Sachs sees tokenization as a way to expand trading. Wells Fargo’s tokenized deposit system is already moving cross-border payments in less than two minutes. Morgan Stanley is weighing the advisory role. Meanwhile, research firm [Citrini] predicts a boom in real-world asset tokenization. The message is consistent: traditional finance is moving assets on-chain at scale.
But the harder question, which Citrini’s analysis honestly raises, is who actually profits. Simply putting a bond or a deposit on a blockchain does not guarantee that a specific token or network captures value. The revenue could flow to the bank that issued it, or to the infrastructure provider, or to the distributed ledger itself. For investors, the difference between a safe play versus speculation. For the system, it matters whether tokenization spreads economic surplus is distributed equitably or concentrated with the largest intermediaries.
Today’s reflection from Solomon’s encounter with wealth reminds us that what matters is not the gift being offered but its purpose. Tokenization could either deepen existing power concentration or it could unlock new ways for people to access markets, to send money cheaply, or to own real property on blockchain with clear rights. The better path is one that prioritizes real utility over fee extraction. Banks and builders should design rails that reduce friction and cost for end-users, not merely that replicate middlemen in code.
The trend is real and accelerating. But the industry’s maturity will be measured not by how many assets migrate on-chain, but by whether the revenue capture dynamics serve a wider audience fairly. That is the question regulators and investors must answer now before the boom fully taking shape.