Tokenization is shifting from “Can it work?” to “Who will capture the profits?” In its 79-page report, “Breaking the Wall,” Citrini Research lays out a bullish framework, arguing that once Treasuries, credit and equities move onto blockchains, blockchain will finally have a purpose: assets can flow like software and serve as collateral. CoinDesk’s reporting takes the question a step further: investors really need to determine which types of companies, networks and protocols will earn the revenue. My view is that these two issues must be considered separately: growth in tokenization and the distribution of profits are not the same proposition.
According to a CoinDesk report cited by PANews, the market is divided over who will capture the profits. Christian Magoon of Amplify ETFs is bullish on infrastructure providers becoming “toll booths on-chain,” and sees distribution channels (Coinbase, Robinhood) as equally important. Jeff Dorman of Arca believes the tokenization process will become commoditized, with value accruing to trading, lending and collateralization after assets move on-chain; he cited Securitize, Hyperliquid and Aave. Zach Pandl of Grayscale advocates betting on the networks that host these assets, saying Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana currently lead. Arthur Hayes, meanwhile, questions whether tokenization is merely “better bookkeeping,” but is bullish on the prospects for AI agents running financial services. These are the views of interviewees, not a confirmed distribution of realized profits.
A CoinDesk report published the same day said Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley view tokenization as a growth opportunity rather than a threat, citing trading opportunities, faster payments and the role of financial advisers. This supports the view that “institutional consensus is strengthening,” but does not mean it is already clear who will collect the fees.
Based on this, I infer that who captures the profits depends on two variables: whether liquidity ultimately settles in distribution channels or on-chain protocols, and which players regulatory access rules exclude from fee-generating activities. Conditions to track include whether the value of on-chain RWA, stablecoin and tokenized-asset balances, and protocol fee revenue all rise in tandem. If RWA grows but protocol fees do not, that would suggest more value is being captured by distributors and infrastructure providers. If regulatory access tightens, the leading networks could also change. The material provided here does not include specific figures for these indicators, and Arthur Hayes’s skepticism is the view of a single interviewee, which requires further evidence to assess.
Sources:
CoinDesk (originally published 10-17 at 23:00 Beijing time)
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/10/17/citrini-sees-a-tokenization-boom-the-harder-question-is-who-profits
PANews (originally published 10-17 at 23:10 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a14a6a-3dc8-759b-8219-2911a59ec2ce
CoinDesk (originally published 10-18 at 01:00 Beijing time)
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/10/17/goldman-wells-fargo-morgan-stanley-see-tokenization-as-a-growth-play-not-a-threat
According to a CoinDesk report cited by PANews, the market is divided over who will capture the profits. Christian Magoon of Amplify ETFs is bullish on infrastructure providers becoming “toll booths on-chain,” and sees distribution channels (Coinbase, Robinhood) as equally important. Jeff Dorman of Arca believes the tokenization process will become commoditized, with value accruing to trading, lending and collateralization after assets move on-chain; he cited Securitize, Hyperliquid and Aave. Zach Pandl of Grayscale advocates betting on the networks that host these assets, saying Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana currently lead. Arthur Hayes, meanwhile, questions whether tokenization is merely “better bookkeeping,” but is bullish on the prospects for AI agents running financial services. These are the views of interviewees, not a confirmed distribution of realized profits.
A CoinDesk report published the same day said Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley view tokenization as a growth opportunity rather than a threat, citing trading opportunities, faster payments and the role of financial advisers. This supports the view that “institutional consensus is strengthening,” but does not mean it is already clear who will collect the fees.
Based on this, I infer that who captures the profits depends on two variables: whether liquidity ultimately settles in distribution channels or on-chain protocols, and which players regulatory access rules exclude from fee-generating activities. Conditions to track include whether the value of on-chain RWA, stablecoin and tokenized-asset balances, and protocol fee revenue all rise in tandem. If RWA grows but protocol fees do not, that would suggest more value is being captured by distributors and infrastructure providers. If regulatory access tightens, the leading networks could also change. The material provided here does not include specific figures for these indicators, and Arthur Hayes’s skepticism is the view of a single interviewee, which requires further evidence to assess.
Sources:
CoinDesk (originally published 10-17 at 23:00 Beijing time)
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/10/17/citrini-sees-a-tokenization-boom-the-harder-question-is-who-profits
PANews (originally published 10-17 at 23:10 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a14a6a-3dc8-759b-8219-2911a59ec2ce
CoinDesk (originally published 10-18 at 01:00 Beijing time)
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/10/17/goldman-wells-fargo-morgan-stanley-see-tokenization-as-a-growth-play-not-a-threat