Risk checklist for RWA tokenisation.

The first question is what the token legally represents: a direct ownership right, a share in a fund, a bond, or merely a contractual promise from the issuer without underlying ring-fenced assets. That distinction determines what happens to your claim if the issuer runs into trouble.

Ask under which law the structure falls and whether a prospectus or comparable document is available that has been approved or registered by a supervisor. If that is entirely absent, caution is warranted, no matter how convincing the underlying asset looks.

Check whether the underlying asset, whether bonds, real estate, equity or gold, is held by an independent custodian separate from the issuer, or whether it stays on the issuer's own balance sheet. A well-ring-fenced custody structure protects you better in an issuer bankruptcy, while assets commingled with the issuer add an extra risk layer.

Also ask about reconciliation between the token register and the official books of the underlying asset: who checks that both match, and how often?

A token on a blockchain can technically be transferred quickly, but that does not mean there is actually a buyer at a reasonable price. Research whether an active secondary market exists, how deep it is, and whether the platform or issuer itself offers a redemption facility, and under what conditions it can be suspended.

Also watch for minimum holding periods, lock-up terms and any penalties for early exit. These are often in the fine print of the offering document, not in marketing materials.

Beyond standard management fees on the underlying asset, there can be specific tokenisation costs: issuance fees, redemption fees, whitelist maintenance costs, and sometimes a separate fee for the platform facilitating the secondary market. Add these up before comparing effective return with a non-tokenised alternative.

Also ask about costs that only become visible at exit or physical delivery, such as transport costs for commodities or notary costs for real estate. These are often not fully covered in initial communications.

Check which supervisor, if any, has oversight of the issuer, the custodian and the platform, and whether that oversight covers the underlying asset or only the technical infrastructure. Also ask who is responsible for the smart contract: has the code been externally audited, and who holds the keys to modify the contract or freeze tokens?

Finally: the longer an issuer has existed and the more transparent its historical reporting, the easier it is to verify claims. A lack of track record of prior reporting is itself a signal for extra caution.