Key Takeaways
- Bringing TradFi assets on-chain relies on custody, asset mapping, and price-pegging mechanisms
- Asset custody is the most critical component of the on-chain structure
- Mapping and pegging determine how on-chain assets track real-world prices
- Asset authenticity is typically ensured through institutions, audits, or system mechanisms
- Centralized and decentralized models each involve trade-offs between security and flexibility
- On platforms such as BitMart, these mechanisms collectively form the foundation of trading infrastructure
As “bringing traditional assets on-chain” becomes an increasingly important market trend, a more fundamental question also emerges: how exactly do these assets move from the real world onto the blockchain? The process involves far more than technical implementation alone. It requires a complete infrastructure built around custody, asset mapping, verification, and trading systems. At the same time, this process introduces new forms of risk, including custody failures that undermine real asset backing, oracle delays that create peg deviations, and systemic vulnerabilities caused by smart contract or mechanism failures.
Within BitMart’s trading environment, users primarily see prices and trading interfaces. Behind the scenes, however, these underlying mechanisms are what maintain the connection between real-world assets and blockchain markets.
Asset Custody Mechanisms: The First Step of Going On-Chain
The prerequisite for bringing TradFi assets on-chain is the effective custody of the underlying real-world assets.
Using gold or bonds as examples, before an asset can be tokenized on-chain, it is typically held and managed by professional institutions. These entities may include banks, custodians, or regulated financial organizations whose responsibilities include ensuring that:
- The assets genuinely exist
- The assets are not reused or misappropriated
- The assets can support redemption when required
For example, when a gold asset is tokenized, the corresponding physical gold is usually stored with a designated custodian rather than circulating directly on-chain.
At its core, this custody layer serves as the “trust foundation” of the entire system. If custody fails, the value backing of the on-chain token loses credibility. As a result, when evaluating these assets, the reliability of the custody structure is often more important than the blockchain technology itself.
Mapping and Pegging Logic: How Assets Are “Replicated” On-Chain
After custody is completed, the next step is to map the assets onto the blockchain. This process generally relies on two core mechanisms: asset backing and price feeds.
Asset backing refers to establishing a 1:1 correspondence between on-chain tokens and off-chain real-world assets. For example:
- 1 token = 1 unit of gold
- 1 token = a share of a specific stock
Price feeds, on the other hand, ensure that the prices of on-chain assets can track fluctuations in real-world assets in real time. This is typically achieved through oracle systems, which transmit off-chain market prices to on-chain smart contracts. In some cases, mapping and pegging are implemented together, where pegged tokens maintain both a fixed-ratio mapping and a price adjustment mechanism.
Oracles are responsible for transmitting real-world market prices onto the blockchain, enabling token prices to adjust dynamically. For example, when the price of gold rises, the corresponding token price also increases accordingly.
Within BitMart’s trading environment, many derivatives products are built on this type of “price mapping” mechanism, enabling users to participate in traditional asset price movements through on-chain trading tools.
Who Guarantees That the Assets Actually Exist?
This is one of the most important — and often most overlooked — issues in bringing TradFi assets on-chain.
On-chain assets derive value because they are backed by real-world assets. The key question is: who verifies that those assets genuinely exist? Currently, there are three primary approaches.
The first approach is centralized institutional backing. In this model, issuers or custodians provide proof of reserves, often through regular disclosures or third-party audits. This approach depends heavily on institutional credibility but is generally operationally efficient.
The second approach is audit and transparency mechanisms. By combining off-chain audit reports with on-chain data visibility, projects can improve transparency. Some projects periodically publish reserve information, allowing the market to verify asset backing independently.
The third approach is mechanism-based risk control. Certain structures use collateralization ratios, liquidation rules, and other automated controls to reduce the risk of asset mismatches. For example, if collateral value falls below required thresholds, automatic liquidation mechanisms may be triggered to maintain system stability.
Regardless of the approach used, the core objective remains the same: ensuring that the relationship between on-chain assets and real-world assets is trustworthy and verifiable.
Centralized vs. Decentralized Models
At present, there are two primary approaches to bringing TradFi assets on-chain: centralized models and decentralized models.
Centralized models are typically institution-led and characterized by clear operational structures and high execution efficiency. Asset custody, issuance, and redemption are generally controlled by a single entity. This approach integrates more easily with the traditional financial system but relies heavily on trust in institutions.
Decentralized models rely more extensively on Smart Contracts and algorithmic systems, such as generating synthetic assets through collateralized mechanisms. These structures reduce dependence on centralized institutions but may introduce additional complexity and stability challenges.
Neither model is inherently superior. Each is suited to different objectives and market conditions:
- Prioritizing stability and regulatory compliance → more aligned with centralized models
- Prioritizing openness and trust minimization → more aligned with decentralized models
Within BitMart’s trading ecosystem, many products combine elements of both approaches in order to balance efficiency and security.
The Core Nature of Bringing Traditional Assets On-Chain: Reconstructing Trust
On the surface, bringing TradFi assets on-chain appears to be a technical process. At a deeper level, however, it is fundamentally about reconstructing how trust is established.
Traditional finance relies primarily on institutional credibility, while blockchain systems emphasize code, transparency, and automated mechanisms. In the process of tokenizing assets on-chain, these two frameworks are gradually converging: custody and audits help ensure the authenticity of underlying assets, while blockchain infrastructure enhances transparency and operational efficiency.
For traders, understanding this distinction is particularly important. When participating in related trading activities on BitMart, users are not simply speculating on price movements — they are engaging with a new financial framework built on the combination of real-world assets and blockchain-based mechanisms.
