№ 008Deep Dive20267 min read

DeFiTokenization

TradFi/DeFi Convergence: When Real-World Assets Move On-Chain

Why the TAM Expansion Changes Everything

By Akram Ayyash

The Bottleneck Today

In our last post we discussed how DeFi lending works, if you haven’t read that you can find it here. DeFi lending protocols manage around $65bn in TVL. Protocols process liquidations in seconds. Rates are transparent. But here's the constraint: Almost all DeFi TVL is backed by crypto collateral. Bitcoin or Ethereum or other assets that exist natively on-chain.

What is the next leg of growth? Real-world assets (RWAs) moving on-chain.

If a hedge fund posts tokenized Treasury bills as Aave collateral, the economics shift. Treasury bills are stable. They yield 4-5% annually. They're uncorrelated with Bitcoin crashes. Suddenly, borrowing on DeFi becomes attractive for non-crypto funds.

When that happens, DeFi's addressable market could grow from $2-3 trillion (crypto) to $100-200 trillion (global financial assets) which is the theoretical addressable market. That growth underpins the convergence thesis: DeFi and TradFi will be one and the same.

The Numbers: Global Financing Markets vs. Current DeFi

DeFi lending: $65 billion in TVL, ~$40 billion in outstanding borrowings.

Here's what it would compete with:

DeFi today is less than 0.02% of global financing.

But let’s say tokenized Treasuries reach $500 billion (100x growth from current ~$2.5B), and tokenized corporate bonds reach to 1% adoption ($1.5T), you're quickly at $5-10 trillion in potential collateral. At that scale, DeFi becomes infrastructure, not experiment.

Where We Are: RWA Progress

This is starting to happen now, not theoretical.

Treasury Tokenization:

BlackRock's BUIDL (USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund) has reached $2.0-2.5 billion in AUM. Launched March 2024 with BNY Mellon as custodian, BUIDL operates across 9 blockchains. BUIDL is now accepted as collateral on Binance, Crypto.com, and Deribit. An investor can earn yield on Treasury exposure while using it as margin on a major exchange. That's institutional functionality.

Private Credit:

Figure Technology Solutions has originated over $19 billion in tokenized loans. Centrifuge manages $1.3+ billion across securitized credit and real estate. JPMorgan's Kinexys has processed $1.5+ trillion in transactions since launch, averaging $2 billion daily.

Institutional Infrastructure:

In July 2025, BNY Mellon and Goldman Sachs launched tokenized money market funds on Goldman's GS DAP blockchain. BNY Mellon, with $55.8 trillion in assets under custody, is actively testing tokenized deposits.

In December 2025, the SEC issued a no-action letter to DTCC providing a three-year window for tokenization services on equities, ETFs, and bonds. DTCC's pilot expected in H2 2026.

The SEC repealed SAB 121 in January 2025, removing a major barrier to institutional custody.

Why Settlement Speed Matters

Settlement failures cost the industry $914.7 billion in penalties and resolution measures from 2014-2024, peaking at $161.63 billion during 2021's volatility. I usually joke and say that of the 10 years I spent on Wall Street, 2 of those were spent chasing settlement and ensuring the cash of a trade ended at the right place and the securities ended at the right place as well.

Atomic settlement, where securities and cash transfer simultaneously in one indivisible transaction, eliminates this entirely. This is a core feature of DeFi: trading and settlement are one and the same.

JPMorgan and Chainlink demonstrated this in 2025, settling Ondo's OUSG across blockchains with atomic delivery-versus-payment. The transaction was final upon confirmation. No settlement risk. No gap.

DTCC holds $13.4 billion in average daily margin, capital tied up specifically to cover settlement risk. That capital has a ~4.5% opportunity cost = $603 million annually in trapped capital cost. If atomic settlement becomes standard, that capital is freed. Globally, that's potentially $2-5 billion in annual capital optimization, even assuming modest 1-2 day reduction.

But the deeper benefit: risk reduction. During 2008, settlement delays turned bad news into cascading failures. Lehman couldn't settle. Counterparties couldn't retrieve collateral. Uncertainty spread. The system froze. Atomic settlement removes that entire failure mode.

Collateral Velocity: The Multiplier Effect

In traditional finance, collateral has limited velocity. A Treasury bill posted to a prime broker:

Sits in the vault

Can be rehypothecated once (SEC allows up to 140% of debit balance)

Funds the PB's operations

Eventually settles

Total velocity: typically 2-4x. Pre-2008, velocity reached 6-9x, but post-crisis regulations compressed it.

On-chain, collateral can move differently. A Treasury bill tokenized and posted to a DeFi protocol:

Is immediately visible and borrowable

Can be lent out instantly

Can be re-posted as collateral in multiple protocols simultaneously

Generates yield at multiple layers

This isn't unlimited rehypothecation (which creates tail risk). Unlike Lehman, where rehypothecation created a black hole, on-chain collateral chains are fully auditable. We can see exactly how many times a dollar has been pledged. We're trading opacity for visibility.

If collateral velocity increases from 4x to 6x, lendable assets increase 50% without new issuance. That supplies more lending capacity and compresses financing rates.

Why Assets Will Move: Four Structural Forces

1. Settlement speed is non-negotiable.

The move from T+3 to T+2 took 6 years (1989-1995). T+2 to T+1 required 15 months (2023-2024). Each day of acceleration mattered, it freed capital, reduced risk, improved efficiency. On-chain settlement is T+0 (instant).

2. Transparency reduces information asymmetry.

Mid-sized asset managers don't know what rates other funds pay for financing. You don't have optionality. Your PB quotes; you accept or walk. On-chain rates are transparent on the other hand. You compare across venues. You arbitrage between them. Smaller institutions suddenly have pricing power they lacked before.

3. Regulatory arbitrage dissolves.

European funds might borrow dollars at different rates than Singapore funds accessing the same market. FX differences and relationship dynamics create segmented pricing. On-chain, the dollar is the dollar. Rate is rate. Geography is irrelevant.

4. Cost of capital is destiny.

History suggests that if on-chain financing becomes structurally cheaper than traditional PB for any major asset class, even just Treasury borrowing, capital tends to migrate. It won’t happen overnight, but that’s the direction of travel.

The Barriers Are Real

DeFi does have some barriers ahead of it before increase in adoption:

Regulatory uncertainty. A Broadridge 2025 survey found 73% of institutions cite regulatory uncertainty as the biggest challenge. The DTCC no-action letter is positive, but it's a 3-year window with conditions. Global coordination on standards is unclear.

Technical interoperability. DeFi fragmentation across chains has created liquidity silos. Cross-chain bridges exist but carry bridge-specific risks. Until there's unified collateral pools across chains, liquidity remains fragmented.

Smart contract risk. Treasury tokenization is boring, the contract holds Treasury bills. More complex RWAs (loans, real estate) require contracts that make judgments. Those contracts can have bugs. Oracles can be manipulated.

Liquidity clustering. Tokenized assets will trade where other tokenized assets trade. If JPMorgan's Kinexys becomes the central hub, institutions must use Kinexys. That's different risks, not better risks.

Historical Precedent: Transitions Take Time

Electronic trading: Started in the 1970s. The NYSE's first all-electronic trading day happened March 23, 2020, forced by COVID, not choice. Total: 40+ years.

Physical certificates to electronic settlement: Began in 1973. Still not 100% complete in some jurisdictions.

T+3 to T+2: Took 6 years of coordination (1989-1995).

T+2 to T+1: Took 15 months (2023-2024).

Markets move slowly, then suddenly.

In a base case scenario where regulatory clarity continues:

2025-2027: Proof of concept. Tokenized treasuries reaches $10-20B. DTCC pilot launches.

2028-2030: Institutional adoption begins. $500B in Treasury tokenization. Corporate bonds follow.

2030-2035: Conversion accelerates. Trillions migrate. Dual-track settlement becomes normal.

2035+: The distinction between "DeFi" and "TradFi" becomes a linguistic artifact. It's all just Finance.

From DeFi → TradFi → Fi

The linguistic shift matters most.

Today: DeFi (permissionless, risky) versus TradFi (centralized, safe). That made sense when DeFi was niche.

Once settlement and collateral move on-chain, meaningful categories shift:

On-chain vs. off-chain (infrastructure choice)

Permissionless vs. permissioned (compliance choice)

Transparent vs. opaque (disclosure choice)

Automated vs. discretionary (execution choice)

Some institutions will want permissionless infrastructure. Most will want permissioned layers. Both exist on-chain.

The unified category is Finance. The settlement mechanism is implementation detail. This is how previous transitions worked. When electronic trading emerged, we didn't say "e-finance" versus "physical finance." We just said stock markets. The mechanism changed; the function stayed.

In Conclusion

Will on-chain finance replace Wall Street today? Unlikely. Will it disrupt it? Very Likely. Here are my takeaways:

The real opportunity isn’t crypto lending, it’s global financing infrastructure. DeFi lending today is a ~$65B market backed by crypto collateral, but the addressable market expands dramatically once stocks, bonds, and Treasuries move on-chain.

Settlement speed and collateral efficiency matter more than tokenization hype. Atomic settlement and transparent collateral reuse reduce trapped capital, lower risk, and compress financing spreads, benefits that compound at institutional scale.

Cost of capital is the ultimate adoption driver. If on-chain financing becomes structurally cheaper for any major asset class, capital will migrate, gradually at first, then persistently, regardless of ideology.

The end state is not DeFi vs. TradFi, but Finance on new rails. The meaningful distinctions will be permissioned vs. permissionless, automated vs. discretionary, and transparent vs. opaque, not “crypto” versus “traditional”.

What won’t change: Compliance, custody, risk management remain necessary. They're implemented differently, identity layers, permissioned protocols, institutional-grade infrastructure.

The firms that move first will own the future. The ones that resist will eventually adapt from a position of weakness. In general, that's how markets work: not through revolution, but rather through slow, economically-compelled migration toward cheaper, faster, transparent infrastructure.

Drop me a line:

What do you think? Do you like this? Do you not like this? I would love to hear your thoughts, so please reach me at akram@span.blog

Enjoyed this? Subscribe for the weekly deep dive, or drop me a line at akram@span.blog.