Yes and No
Why tokenization/blockchain can be useful for RWAs:
It enables programmability and automation that traditional structures handle poorly or expensively — such as automated, transparent distribution of complex revenue streams (e.g., timber harvest proceeds split with carbon credit sales), on-chain compliance rules, or atomic settlement. It can also improve transparency and auditability for assets where provenance matters (particularly carbon credits, where immutable records of issuance and retirement help reduce double-counting risks). Additionally, it can lower friction for global fractional ownership and bring in capital from crypto-native investors who prefer on-chain assets.
Why it is often not needed:
For most RWAs, the core challenges — legal title, custody, physical asset management, regulation, and finding buyers — are not solved by blockchain. Traditional tools (SPVs, funds, custodians, and existing secondary markets) already deliver fractional ownership and liquidity for many asset classes. Adding blockchain frequently layers on smart contract risk, regulatory uncertainty, and operational complexity without meaningfully improving the economics or accessibility of the underlying asset.
Centralized vs. decentralized blockchains:
For many real-world assets — especially regulated ones like real estate, private credit, or carbon-linked instruments — a permissioned or centralized blockchain (or hybrid model) is often more practical than public crypto-maxi chains. It allows known counterparties, easier regulatory compliance, better data privacy, and simpler integration with existing financial infrastructure, while still delivering some of the automation and transparency benefits. Public decentralized chains shine when you specifically need permissionless access and composability with DeFi, but they carry extra baggage (volatility, scrutiny, and “crypto” perception) that many institutions prefer to avoid.