What if the stocks you own could travel across blockchains the way a message hops from one app to another? A few months ago, I watched a tokenized ETF pinball through networks in a way that felt almost magical—and then immediately practical. It wasn’t magic, of course. It was a carefully engineered choreography: assets burned and unlocked, coins minted and verifiably tracked, all while staying within a governance framework that felt old-fashioned and new at the same time. The question that kept nudging me was simple, but enormous: what does it take for real-world assets to move as freely as digital tokens without creating new holes in liquidity or custody?

From a wallet’s doorway, the idea of cross-chain custody starts to look less like a technical gimmick and more like a stubborn necessity. Real-world assets—stocks, ETFs, even invoices or real estate—are being tokenized and traded across networks at a scale that would have sounded fantastical a few years ago. Ondo Global Markets has begun rolling tokenized U.S. equities across Ethereum and planning to stretch to dozens of networks, backed by LayerZero-style interoperability. In parallel, self-custody wallets, like Trust Wallet, are beginning to offer access to RWAs across chains, turning wallets into gateways rather than front doors that slam shut at the threshold of a new network. These moves aren’t isolated experiments; they map a shift in how custody and liquidity are designed.1

What makes this possible—and what keeps me awake at night about it—are a set of converging technologies and industry shifts. LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token standard, or OFT, promises native-like token movement across 50-plus networks without wrapping. Tokens can burn or lock on the source chain and mint or unlock on the destination, with adapters to bring existing assets into the omnichain flow. It isn’t just a clever trick; it’s a blueprint for how institutions can offer multi‑chain access without fragmenting ownership or liquidity.2 I keep returning to a mental image: a single, coherent stream of value, not a braided tangle of bridges and wrapped versions.

These technical layers sit atop a broader institutional adoption curve. Banks and fintechs are formalizing custody, tokenized deposits, and settlement services for RWAs. Citi has signaled active exploration of custody for digital assets backing stablecoins and crypto ETFs, while U.S. Bancorp has created a dedicated unit focused on digital assets, custody, and tokenization. Such moves aren’t cosmetic; they indicate a willingness to reimagine custody as a multi‑chain, regulated, and auditable service.3 4 At the same time, the ecosystem is maturing around identity, verification, and settlement flows that would allow RWAs to move across chains without re-verifying every time. The idea of cross‑chain identity and verifiable credentials—DID and VC frameworks—could make cross‑chain settlement both faster and more trustworthy.3

To ground this in something tangible, consider what OFT enables in practice. If you hold a tokenized stock on one network and want to move it to another, OFT provides a mechanism to do so without wrapping into a new token type. It relies on cross‑chain messaging and a set of adapters that translate between systems, maintaining a single supply and interoperable liquidity. The practical upshot for custody teams is significant: fewer bridge points, less liquidity fragmentation, and a more auditable trail of value that stays legible across multiple networks. In enterprise settings, this is not merely a convenience; it’s a compliance and risk story that can be audited, tested, and scaled.5

The implications for decision-makers are weighting more heavily toward governance and risk controls as much as toward technology. If institutions are to rely on cross-chain custody for RWAs, they will need robust security analytics, cross‑chain observability, and clear settlement semantics that don’t rely on closing channels mid-stream. Researchers and practitioners are already mapping cross‑chain transactions for better tracing and forensics, a necessary step as custody becomes multi‑network by default.6 7

So where does all this leave you as a banker, insurer, asset manager, or wallet operator? First, there’s a practical move: assess whether your custody framework can accommodate cross‑chain movement with minimal friction. This means evaluating whether your tech stack supports OFT-like tokens, how MPC-based custody could distribute risk across sub‑wallets, and whether you have governance and policy controls that can adapt to multi‑chain liquidity without compromising compliance. Second, it invites a broader conversation about interoperability—not as a niche capability but as a core capability that shapes product strategy, risk management, and client experience.

For readers building or evaluating solutions, several threads deserve attention:

• The core architecture: LayerZero’s OFT shows how cross‑chain movement can be unified without wrapping, using burn/lock on origin and mint/unlock on destination, with adapters for existing assets. This is the backbone that keeps multi‑chain custody from becoming a labyrinth.6
• Identity and verification: Cross‑chain identity and verifiable credentials promise to simplify multi‑jurisdictional checks, reducing repetitive verification while preserving auditability. The xRWA concept sketches how multi‑chain settlement could work with secure authentication across networks.7
• Security and observability: As custody moves across chains, the ability to trace, audit, and detect anomalies across networks becomes essential. Cross‑chain security analytics research is making those tasks more practical and scalable.8

If you’re open to following the currents rather than resisting them, the path seems clearer: design custody that treats multiple networks as a single landscape, not as a mosaic of isolated islands. It’s not about rushing to a final destination; it’s about choosing a route that keeps assets liquid, auditable, and accessible.

What questions would you ask your governance and risk teams if you were to adopt a multi‑chain custody approach for RWAs? What standards would you require to ensure that every cross‑chain movement remains transparent and compliant across your jurisdictional footprint? And as a reader and participant in this evolving space, what might you discover next as the ecosystem continues to unfold?

Should Real-World Assets Travel Across Blockchains? A Contemplative Path to Interoperable Cross-Chain Custody for Tokenized Assets

I remember staring at my screen one morning, watching a tokenized ETF ping-pong across networks the way a message hops between apps in a chat thread. It wasn’t fantasy, it wasn’t a demo reel, and it sure wasn’t a single‑chain miracle. It was a practical choreography: burn and lock on one chain, mint and unlock on another, all while governance and security checks kept pace. The question that kept nudging me was enormous in its simplicity: what would it take for real-world assets to move as freely as digital tokens without creating new holes in liquidity, custody, or trust?

Why this matters now

Interoperable cross‑chain custody for tokenized assets sits at the crossroads of real-world assets (RWAs), tokenization infrastructure, and institutional risk controls. RWAs—stocks, ETFs, bonds, invoices, even real estate—are increasingly being tokenized and moved across chains at scale. Ondo Global Markets, for example, is tokenizing U.S. equities on Ethereum now and planning expansion to dozens of networks via LayerZero‑style interoperability, aiming to reach thousands of assets by year‑end. Meanwhile, self‑custody wallets are becoming gateways to these RWAs, not gatekeepers that slam shut at the border of a new network. These are not isolated experiments; they signal a shift in how custody, liquidity, and accessibility are designed for a multi‑chain world. (Sources and real‑world hints: Ondo’s rollout across networks; Trust Wallet’s RWAs access; LayerZero OFT documentation.)

The tech that makes this feel possible—and sane

What makes cross‑chain custody practical is a stack of ideas that fit together like ribs in a framework rather than a single bolt of genius. A few technologies and patterns keep recurring in credible ways:

• OFT, the Omnichain Fungible Token, is the backbone that lets a token move across more than 50 networks without wrapping. It uses a burn/lock on the origin chain and a mint/unlock on the destination, while adapters translate existing tokens into this omnichain flow. This creates unified liquidity across networks and reduces the liquidity fragmentation that used to plague multi‑chain custody. (Foundation: LayerZero OFT standard and ecosystem integrations.)
• Cross‑chain identity and verification (the xRWA concept) envisions DID and Verifiable Credentials enabling cross‑chain authentication and settlement workflows without re‑verifying assets and parties on every hop. It’s not just tech; it’s process design for multi‑jurisdictional trust. (Conceptual anchor: cross‑chain identity frameworks and xRWA discussions.)
• MPC‑based custody models offer a practical path to distribute control across multiple signatories or sub‑wallets, reducing single points of failure while enabling enterprise governance. When you hear about cross‑chain custody in institutional contexts, you’re often hearing about multi‑party computation and policy‑driven controls baked into the custody layer. (Practical references: MPC custody concepts and tailored wallet approaches.)

Together, these pieces aim to make multi‑chain asset movement auditable, secure, and scalable, rather than a pile of ad‑hoc bridges and wrapped versions. As one analyst noted, the objective is to maintain a single supply and transparent ownership while moving smoothly across networks. (Practical framing: OFT’s unified liquidity across networks.)

What changes in the landscape you should be aware of

• Banks and traditional financial players are formalizing custody and tokenization services for RWAs. Citi has signaled active exploration of custody for digital assets backing stablecoins and crypto ETFs, while U.S. Bancorp formed a dedicated unit focused on digital assets and tokenization. This isn’t footnotes territory anymore; it’s a shift in who provides custody and how it’s governed. (News signals from Reuters.)
• The ecosystem is coalescing around cross‑chain standards and enterprise tooling. LayerZero’s OFT is being integrated into major products (for example, Fireblocks’ Tokenization Engine), and institutional fund providers (like KAIO with Libre) are deploying OFT across many chains. The result is a practical, multi‑chain custody reality that institutions can actually operate. (Industry integrations and ecosystem momentum.)
• Cross‑chain security analytics and observability are maturing. Tools that map cross‑chain transactions improve tracing, anomaly detection, and forensics—critical for risk teams as custody becomes multi‑network by default. (Emerging research and observability efforts.)

These shifts are not merely technical; they’re governance and risk stories that influence product roadmaps, client experiences, and regulatory conversations. The point isn’t to rush to a final destination, but to design custody that treats multiple networks as a single landscape rather than a mosaic of isolated islands.

Core ideas in practice: how the pieces fit together

• Cross‑chain movement without wrapping: LayerZero’s OFT provides a mechanism to burn/lock tokens on the source and mint/unlock on the destination, with adapters to convert existing assets. The practical effect is fewer bridges, less liquidity fragmentation, and more auditable trails of value across networks. This is the backbone that keeps multi‑chain custody coherent. (LayerZero OFT overview and ecosystem notes.)
• Tokenized RWAs going mainstream in wallets and exchanges: With Trust Wallet enabling RWAs access (via Ondo Global Markets) across Ethereum and beyond, wallets become gateways rather than doorways that slam shut at a network border. This shift matters for user experience, governance, and the pace of adoption. (Trust Wallet/WGW and Ondo coverage.)
• Identity and settlement enable true cross‑chain workflows: DID and verifiable credentials could simplify multi‑jurisdictional checks and streamline cross‑chain settlement without constant re‑verification, a key unlock for enterprise scale. (xRWA concept and related discussions.)
• Security, tracing, and risk: As custody spans more networks, institutions will want anti‑fraud controls, cross‑chain observability, and robust security analytics to map transactions across chains and detect anomalies. Early research and industry practice point toward mapping and forensic capabilities becoming standard components of custody stacks. (Cross‑chain security analytics research.)

These threads point to a pragmatic path: build custody that treats multiple networks as a single operational landscape, not a ledger of disconnected islands. That means governance, risk controls, and policy design must evolve in parallel with the technology.

A practical, actionable path forward for decision makers

If you’re steering a corporate treasury, a bank’s custody unit, or a tokenized‑assets platform, here is a concrete, try‑this‑now checklist to begin bridging multi‑chain custody in a responsible way.

• Step 1: Map your RWAs and networks
• List the asset types you tokenize (stocks, ETFs, bonds, invoices, real estate, etc.) and the networks you currently or plan to operate on.
• Identify the primary custody requirements for each asset class (settlement cadence, KYC/AML needs, regulatory jurisdiction, auditability).
• Step 2: Evaluate multi‑chain custody architecture
• Assess whether your stack supports OFT‑like movement or similar cross‑chain token transfer with adapters for existing assets.
• Consider MPC custody or distributed key management to reduce single points of failure and improve governance across sub‑wallets.
• Step 3: Integrate identity and settlement flows
• Begin exploring DID/VC frameworks to enable cross‑chain identity and verifiable credentials for counterparties and assets.
• Design cross‑chain settlement semantics that don’t require closing channels mid‑stream, aligning with xRWA concepts.
• Step 4: Pilot with a concrete use case
• Start with tokenized stocks or ETFs moving between Ethereum and a secondary network via OFT adapters. Track liquidity, settlement latency, and auditability end‑to‑end.
• Use a trusted wallet gateway (for example, a test deployment with a self‑custody wallet like Trust Wallet) to observe user experience and flow resilience.
• Step 5: Establish governance and risk controls
• Define policy controls for multi‑chain liquidity, asset approvals, and change management across networks.
• Build out cross‑chain observability and security analytics to map cross‑chain paths, verify integrity, and detect anomalies.

In practice, you’ll want to pair these steps with concrete case studies and vendor capabilities. For example, LayerZero OFT is designed to enable cross‑chain token movement with unified liquidity; Fireblocks has integrated OFT into its Tokenization Engine to support multi‑chain issuance and custody; and Libre/KAIO announcements show institutional tokenized funds extending to dozens of chains. These references illustrate a credible enterprise path rather than a theoretical one. (References: LayerZero OFT docs; Fireblocks integration; KAIO Libre integration.)

Quick reference how to describe the architecture to colleagues

• OFT enables tokens to move across networks without wrapping by burning/locking on the source and minting/unlocking on the destination, with adapters to handle existing tokens.
• MPC custody distributes key control across multiple parties or sub‑wallets, reducing single points of failure while enabling governance policies.
• xRWA and cross‑chain identity frameworks aim to streamline identity verification and settlement across chains, reducing redundant checks and improving auditability.
• Cross‑chain security analytics provide the visibility needed to trace and investigate multi‑network transactions, supporting risk management and regulatory compliance.

What to watch in the near future (and why it matters)

• Wider adoption of OFT standards and adapters across major institutional platforms will push interoperability from a capability to an expectation. This matters for product roadmaps, regulatory conversations, and client experiences.
• Banks formalizing custody and tokenization services for RWAs could redefine what a “custodian” is in a multi‑chain world, moving from custody of assets to custody of cross‑chain value flows with auditable trails.
• Identity, verification, and settlement workflows will become core to multi‑chain custody, not nice‑to‑have add‑ons. The outcome could be faster, more auditable cross‑chain movements that still comply with jurisdictional and internal controls.

Final reflection and a prompt for ongoing dialogue

If cross‑chain custody becomes the norm, governance, risk management, and operational discipline will be the invisible rails that keep the train moving. The technical pieces are important, but the human pieces—policy alignment, regulatory dialogue, and clear accountability—will determine whether this multi‑chain vision translates into safer, more accessible liquidity for real‑world assets.

What standards would you require to ensure every cross‑chain movement remains transparent, auditable, and compliant across your jurisdictional footprint? And as you consider this multi‑chain landscape, what new questions will emerge about governance, risk, and user experience as the ecosystem continues to unfold?

Notable references and signals in the ecosystem (for context)

• Tokenized RWAs moving cross‑chain and wallet integration signals: Ondo Global Markets expansion and Trust Wallet RWAs access. (Cited sources: prnewswire, GlobeNewswire, coindesk.)
• Cross‑chain standards and enterprise tooling: LayerZero OFT, official docs, and ecosystem deployments (e.g., Fireblocks integration, KAIO Libre partnerships). (Cited sources: layerzero.network, docs.layerzero.network, kaio.xyz.)
• Cross‑chain identity and settlement concepts: xRWA discussions and related DID/VC frameworks, cross‑chain security analytics research. (Cited sources: arxiv.org.)

If you’d like, I can tailor this piece toward a specific audience segment (e.g., corporate treasurers, security officers, or blockchain engineers) or convert the insights into a practical, role‑based set of playbooks with checklists and vendor evaluation matrices.

Should Real-World Assets Travel Across Blockchains? A Conversation on Interoperable Cross-Chain Custody for Tokenized Assets

Key Summary and Implications

Real-world assets are moving across networks not as a gimmick but as a working capability, underpinned by cross‑chain standards that aim to keep ownership, liquidity, and audit trails coherent. The core insight is that custody design must evolve from single-network safety rails to a multi‑chain operating model where governance, risk controls, and policy become integral as the tech itself. In practice this means wallets and custodians become gateways to value across networks, not gatekeepers at the network edge. We are beyond experiments: institutions are rethinking custody as a multi‑chain service with auditable flows, verifiable identity, and scalable settlement.

• Implication 1: Governance and risk controls must rise to match multi‑chain capability, with cross‑chain observability and standardized settlement semantics.
• Implication 2: Interoperability could redefine custody from asset custody to cross‑chain value flow governance, reshaping product strategy and client experiences.

Action Plans

• Step 1: Map RWAs and networks
• Inventory tokenizable asset classes (stocks, ETFs, bonds, invoices, real estate, etc.) and the networks you plan to operate on. Identify regulatory jurisdictions and audit requirements for each pairing.
• Step 2: Assess and align custody architecture
• Evaluate whether your tech stack supports OFT‑like movement or similar cross‑chain transfer with adapters for existing assets. Consider MPC or distributed key management to distribute control across sub‑wallets and reduce single points of failure.
• Step 3: Integrate identity and settlement design
• Explore DID and verifiable credentials to enable cross‑chain identity for counterparties and assets. Define cross‑chain settlement semantics that minimize re-verification while preserving auditability.
• Step 4: Launch a governed pilot
• Start with a tokenized asset (e.g., stock or ETF) moving between two networks via OFT adapters. Measure liquidity, settlement latency, and end‑to‑end traceability.
• Step 5: Establish ongoing governance and risk discipline
• Create multi‑chain liquidity policies, asset approvals, and change‑management processes. Implement cross‑chain observability and analytics to map value flows and detect anomalies.

In practice, leaders are already seeing tangible pathways: OFT provides a backbone for multi‑chain liquidity without wrapping, wallets become gateways to RWAs, and cross‑chain identity and settlement concepts promise faster, more auditable flows. Pair these with robust governance and you’re designing for scale, not just a better bridge.

Closing Message

If we’re truly building for a multi‑chain world, the question isn’t whether cross‑chain custody can work, but how we design it so it works safely, transparently, and inclusively for all stakeholders. What standards would you require to ensure every cross‑chain movement remains transparent, auditable, and compliant across your jurisdictional footprint? And as the ecosystem evolves, what new governance, risk, and user‑experience questions will you be asking your teams, your partners, and your clients?

If this resonates, start with a small, concrete pilot and let governance evolve alongside technology. The pathway isn’t a single destination; it’s a disciplined journey toward a single, coherent landscape for value across networks.