On March 25, 2026, Eastern Eight Time, Franklin Templeton and Ondo Finance announced that they will mint ETF tokens of the three major asset classes—U.S. stocks, fixed income, and gold—into a tokenized version that can be traded on-chain 24/7, attempting to directly connect the mainstream passive investment tools of Wall Street with the crypto world. The first products will be open to investors in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Latin America, while the U.S. market is explicitly labeled “pending further regulatory clarity.” Traditional ETFs have long been limited by exchange operating hours and regional access, but now the constraints of time and geography have been breached by technology, while the regulatory and compliance frameworks have noticeably lagged behind—this constitutes the core tension of this event. The question is no longer “Should traditional institutions go on-chain,” but rather: How will Wall Street’s longstanding asset management giant, managing over $15 trillion, team up with a DeFi native team to mint ETF tokens on the chain, fundamentally rewriting the game rules for both Wall Street and the crypto world?

$15 trillion of asset management on-chain: Wall Street's direct entry

Franklin Templeton disclosed in its 2025 report that its assets under management had surpassed $15 trillion, making it a typical “traditional authority” in the global public and institutional asset management industry. The fact that such an institution chose to partner with Ondo, which was born in the crypto-native world, instead of simply building a closed-loop system is itself a signal: Wall Street no longer views the on-chain world as a marginal testing ground, but aims to directly participate in defining the “compliant version” of on-chain securities with its own brand endorsement.

Ondo's path is also not a sudden emergence, but a clear evolution along the lines of from on-chain treasury bonds to multi-asset ETFs. Previously, it moved traditional U.S. treasury bonds—considered the most “boring” asset in the conventional sense—on-chain through products like OUSG, providing the first pools of underlying assets that can be considered as having “real-world credit” for DeFi. This collaboration with Franklin to further tokenize U.S. stock ETFs, fixed income ETFs, and gold-related ETFs is an upgrade from single treasury bonds to a multi-asset, cross-cycle asset allocation layer.

This action is more meaningful when viewed on the timeline after 2025: In 2025, the SEC approved Bitcoin spot ETFs, unlocking a key channel for the infiltration of crypto assets into traditional markets and compelling traditional institutions to rethink—the native crypto assets can be tokenized into ETFs, so should traditional ETFs also be “tokenized”? Thus, we see a bidirectional approach: Bitcoin entering Wall Street, while Wall Street’s own ETFs are minted on-chain. Mainstream media like Bloomberg have unusually defined this as “the first institutional-grade tokenized security product supporting all-weather trading”. Unlike previous small-scale pilot projects and private placements for accredited investors, this time, led by a giant asset manager with hundreds of billions, covering multiple asset classes and open to multiple regions, features such as “institutional-grade, all-weather, tokenized securities” are systematically linked together for the first time.

From 9 to 24/7: The time boundaries of ETFs have been torn open

The underlying assets and trading mechanisms of traditional ETFs are bound to the exchange system:

● Trading hours are limited to the opening and closing windows of local exchanges, with New York sessions, London sessions, and Asian sessions misaligned, causing cross-timezone investors to either experience price gaps or rely on complex derivatives and cross-market hedging structures to fill in time gaps. Coupled with T+1 or longer settlement cycles, ETFs have always had a natural flaw in the sense of “liquidity being available at all times.”

● When these ETFs are tokenized and traded on-chain 24/7, cross-timezone investors and institutional funds are no longer constrained by the exchange's bell. Holders can adjust positions, hedge, or stake at any point in time through their wallets and on-chain interfaces, with Asian investors no longer needing to passively wait for the U.S. stock market to open, while funds from the Middle East and Latin America can directly participate in the global pricing process of the same asset during local liquidity peaks.

U.S. stocks, fixed income, and gold, which are often dispersed across different exchanges and market hours within the traditional framework, have their liquidity severed in separate islands. Once tokenized, they are mapped to a unified on-chain settlement and trading layer:

● For institutions, it enables the construction of more coherent cross-asset strategy portfolios around the same on-chain asset pool without the need to repeatedly shift positions between multiple brokerage accounts and clearing systems.
● For individual investors, what was once a high-threshold, cross-platform allocation logic is broken down into a more intuitive choice of “holding a certain type of asset token,” reducing the operational costs of participating in complex asset portfolios.

However, tearing open the time boundary does not only mean a “smoother” experience, but also harbors new risk structures. All-weather trading combined with high-frequency price updates could amplify the transmission speed of late-breaking news and black swan events; market makers need to be continuously online to quote and hedge tokenized ETFs, significantly increasing inventory management and risk control pressures. Whether liquidity is sufficiently deep outside traditional trading hours, and whether extreme moments might lead to “sharp price distortions” and flash crash scenarios, are all real challenges that this model must confront.

Avoiding the U.S. market: Testing waters in Europe and emerging markets first

The initial regions opened up for this cooperation explicitly target the European, Asia-Pacific, Middle Eastern, and Latin American markets, while American investors are excluded from the initial scope, on the grounds of “still waiting for regulatory clarity.” Behind this geographic distribution reflects the disparity in attitudes towards tokenized securities across different legal jurisdictions—some European and Middle Eastern financial centers adopt a “regulatory sandbox + principle-based” framework for the pilot of securities tokenization, allowing for the exploration of new product forms under existing securities laws through case-by-case approvals. Markets in Asia-Pacific and Latin America also exhibit greater policy flexibility and openness to foreign innovation.

In contrast, the regulatory framework in the U.S. regarding digital securities and on-chain finance remains fragmented, with unresolved issues such as the delineation of responsibilities between regulatory agencies and the classification of tokenized products between securities law and commodities law, lacking a unified consensus. Therefore, for institutions like Franklin and Ondo, which must consider global operations and cannot afford major compliance failures, “remaining inactive” in the U.S. while testing waters in more tokenization-friendly jurisdictions is a typical risk control pathway.

There is a prevailing viewpoint in market analysis—“the U.S. market entry will become a wind direction indicator for industry regulation.” This judgment makes sense to some extent: once U.S. regulators provide clear signals, other regions often adjust their local rules based on its framework. However, this statement currently remains mostly at the commentary level, still belonging to unverified market expectations, and cannot yet be regarded as an established fact.

If the U.S. does not approve similar products for a long period, tokenized securities are likely to form effective regulatory and liquidity strongholds in Europe, the Middle East, or certain Asian financial centers. This will bring about two types of effects:

● Regulatory arbitrage: Institutions may choose to establish vehicles in more lenient jurisdictions, packaging U.S. assets “after compliance structures” for tokenization, creating misaligned regulatory standards and capital flows.
● Capital migration: For global funds, markets with the best liquidity often become pricing centers. If the U.S. continues to hesitate, there is a long-term risk of passively relinquishing some “global asset pricing power.”

Bypassing brokerages? Tokenized securities rewrite intermediary structures

In the traditional ETF system, a transaction must pass through multiple intermediaries: investors place orders with brokerages, brokerages match orders through exchanges, and then complete asset and fund delivery via clearing institutions and custodian banks. Each layer corresponds to stable sources of income such as trading commissions, custody fees, and clearing and settlement service fees, constituting the foundation of brokerages and custodial institutions' business models.

Tokenized ETFs change the underlying logic of asset and ownership accounting—when ETFs are mapped as on-chain tokens, transfers between holders can occur directly between wallets, with settlement and registration completed in real-time on the on-chain ledger, eliminating the need for days of centralized reconciliation and multi-party bookkeeping. This means:

● Traditional brokerages that originally relied on order routing and matching advantages have their role significantly weakened in the transfer of on-chain tokens, and some transactions no longer need to pass through their account systems and settlement channels.
● The value of custodial institutions shifts from “safeguarding physical or electronically registered securities” to “how to safely manage private keys and access control for on-chain assets,” reconstructing the logic of custody fees.

In this new system, wallets and on-chain interfaces begin to take on roles similar to “light brokerages” or asset entry points. Users can check holdings, initiate transactions, engage in staking and yield strategies through these entry points, without necessarily needing to open multiple accounts at traditional brokerages. Whoever can provide stable, user-friendly, and seamlessly integrated on-chain access with traditional finance under compliance will have the opportunity to occupy the front-end entry position in the new distribution chain.

However, in the foreseeable future, tokenized ETFs will still be difficult to completely bypass compliance intermediaries. Customer identity verification (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), tax reporting, and investor suitability management—all require licensed intermediary institutions to bear responsibility. Therefore, the more realistic short-term scenario is: traditional brokerages coexist with new types of on-chain service providers, the former continuing to play a core role at the compliance and regulatory interfaces, while the latter is more responsible for innovation at the experience and technical levels. In the long term, with regulatory adaptation and technological maturity, the entire securities distribution and clearing chain may be reshaped—whoever can redefine the meanings of “account opening,” “custody,” and “trading” will win in the next round of financial infrastructure reconstruction.

Meeting of DeFi and RWA: Ondo's stress test

Under the grand narrative of RWA (real-world assets on-chain), on-chain treasury bonds and ETF tokens are seen as key tools to inject “compliant yield assets” into the DeFi ecosystem. In the past, DeFi yield largely depended on liquidity mining, leveraged lending, and inter-protocol arbitrage, with yield sources being highly endogenous and closely correlated with crypto market volatility; however, when tokens of short-term treasury bonds, investment-grade fixed income, and gold-related ETFs enter the chain, DeFi protocols can provide users with yield asset pools backed by real-world credit under a compliant premise.

Ondo’s practice with OUSG has provided preliminary experience for connecting with mainstream wallets and DeFi protocols: how to interface recognizable RWA assets on-chain, how to return treasury bond yields to users in token form without exposing underlying complexities, and how to embed compliance and access control in protocol design. These experiences are now replicated and amplified in the multi-asset ETF scenario, providing opportunities for more types of traditional assets to become collateral and yield sources in DeFi.

As institutional-grade tokenized products like Franklin's continue to emerge, the interest rate curves and risk preference structures in DeFi will inevitably change. On one end are volatile, highly elastic return crypto-native assets; on the other end are more predictable yields and conservative risk preferences found in RWA-like tokens, both competing for funds on the same chain. Some funds may flow from high-volatility strategies into RWA pools, compressing the risk-free spread of traditional DeFi strategies, and may also drive more protocols to actively introduce RWA to enrich their own collateral assets and revenue sources.

However, to truly gain the trust of large institutions and cautious funds, Ondo still needs to withstand more rigorous tests on compliance risk control and technical robustness. At the compliance level, it must continually prove its ability to meet traditional financial standards in investor vetting, transaction monitoring, and information disclosure; at the technical level, it needs to mitigate systemic risks arising from smart contract vulnerabilities and on-chain attacks through security audits, risk control plans, and extreme market drills. The RWA narrative must transform from a story into infrastructure, relying on projects of this scale to provide verifiable long-term performance.

Regulation lags behind: Is this a test product or a new main stage?

In summary, tokenized ETFs have made substantial impacts on traditional frameworks along three dimensions:

● On the dimension of time boundaries, shifting from “complying with the opening and closing of exchanges” to “on-chain 24/7 continuous trading,” allowing cross-time zone funds to engage in real-time competition on a unified asset pool;
● On the dimension of geographical coverage, the first batch crosses Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Latin America, re-aggregating what was originally segmented liquidity pools by market at the on-chain level;
● On the dimension of intermediary structures, direct settlement of tokens between wallets weakens the inevitable positions of certain brokerages and clearing institutions, leaving space for a new generation of on-chain entry and infrastructure.

On the other hand, the information regarding this product's yield structure and more compliance details remains highly limited, and the outside world cannot clearly determine its fee model, risk segregation arrangements, and the specific regulatory filing pathways across various jurisdictions. These gaps imply uncertainties and risks: investors find it difficult to assess long-term risk-return ratios based on the existing public information, and regulatory agencies may impose new requirements or restrictions on such products in subsequent rulemaking.

Key variables in the coming years will revolve around the regulatory direction in core markets like the U.S., and what form of competitive dynamics will emerge between traditional finance and DeFi after more asset classes are tokenized. One possibility is: tokenized assets are incorporated into existing regulatory frameworks, becoming a “new layer of infrastructure” for traditional finance, while DeFi primarily plays the role of provider of technology and efficiency; another possibility is: part of the tokenized assets expands rapidly at the regulatory edge, attracting substantial cross-border funds, compelling the traditional system to readjust its boundaries.

In facing this evolution, investors and institutions need a basic judgment framework: to view the current tokenized ETF as a short-term test product, serving merely as a tool for liquidity management and technical validation; or to see it as a potential prototype of the main stage for future asset issuance and trading, betting early on strategy and infrastructure layout. The answer will not be provided by a single announcement, but will be collectively informed by the implementation of regulatory rules, product performance under extreme conditions, and whether capital is willing to stay long-term in on-chain asset pools in the coming years.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。