Arthur Hayes argues that tokenization could help drive crypto’s next bull run, but only if established protocols capture the trading, settlement and liquidity activity created by tokenized assets.

In Hayes’s view, artificial intelligence could change the economics of the market. AI agents managing portfolios, collateral and payments could turn tokenized assets into part of a continuously operating, on-chain financial system.

Hayes’s tokenization case begins with AI agents

Hayes sees tokenized stocks and Treasuries as raw material for an automated financial system. “AI agents will run all of your financial services,” he said in a video, arguing that inexpensive computing could allow software to rebalance portfolios, route payments and trade around the clock.

Such a system would need infrastructure capable of handling many small and frequent actions, including liquid markets, reliable settlement, collateral management and clearly defined payment permissions. Early agent-payment tools already show the operational challenge. XRPL’s AI payment tools, for example, separate an agent’s ability to prepare a transaction from the authority to sign it.

Scaling agentic finance therefore involves more than creating tokenized assets. It also requires systems that can manage permissions, settlement and execution at scale.

The sequence is central to Hayes’s thesis: a rise in tokenized assets alone does not complete the process of creating value for a blockchain or its token.

Large RWA totals do not settle the liquidity question

Tokenization has already produced large headline figures, although those figures require careful interpretation. On October 12, RWA.xyz listed XRP Ledger with $5.05 billion in tokenized assets, excluding stablecoins. The same dashboard marked 9.8% as distributed. That distinction shows why an asset total, broad ownership and active secondary-market liquidity are not interchangeable measures.

A review of XRPL’s ranking found the same gap between the network’s total value and the portion that RWA.xyz labels as distributed. Issuer restrictions, investor eligibility requirements and redemption terms can all affect the usefulness of a tokenized product, even when its underlying value is recorded on a public blockchain.

Hayes applies a more selective filter. He said he looks for what is “most misunderstood that could re-rate,” rather than assuming every company or token associated with real-world assets will benefit equally. A protocol needs a role in the actual financial workflow before tokenization can create meaningful demand for its token.

Existing revenue gives the thesis something to measure

Current data illustrate the type of on-chain businesses Hayes has in mind. At the time of writing, DefiLlama listed Hyperliquid with $7.03 billion in total value locked and $71.05 million in protocol revenue over the previous 30 days.

Those figures do not make Hyperliquid a direct tokenization play. They do, however, show a protocol with measurable use, income and token-holder economics before any additional institutional adoption. The distinction matters because tokenization can increase activity on a blockchain without automatically increasing the value of its token.

Pendle provides a different example. The yield protocol had $1.22 billion in TVL, $419,752 in 30-day protocol revenue and $785.66 million in 30-day decentralized-exchange volume at the time of checking. Its tracked revenue model assigns 80% of revenue to sPENDLE holders.

Activity, fees and a stated distribution mechanism can therefore be examined separately from a broader market narrative. These figures come from DefiLlama at the time of writing and illustrate the framework; they are not token recommendations.

Why Hayes is looking beyond new launches

Hayes believes AI agents are more likely to rely on infrastructure that has already survived volatile markets. He pointed to protocols that remained active after DeFi Summer, with existing liquidity and users, rather than a new wave of low-float tokens facing large unlocks.

“The stuff that’s going to 10x is going to be already tradable right now,” he said in another video.

An operating history does not eliminate risk. Smart-contract failures, competition, regulatory restrictions and token dilution can still break the link between a growing protocol and its token. Hayes’s framework therefore starts with a more demanding requirement than a new announcement: the protocol must already be useful, and the token’s claim on the business must be clear enough to assess.

Tokenization expands the market; value capture remains decisive

Hayes’s thesis is narrower than the claim that tokenization automatically lifts the entire crypto market. Tokenized assets may bring more capital on-chain, while AI agents may create more frequent demand for financial infrastructure. Protocols that already process activity and can return part of the resulting economics to holders would have the clearest route to a re-rating if that activity grows.

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get,” Hayes said in a separate video. Tokenization may expand the addressable market, but it does not determine who collects the fees, who owns the liquidity or whether a token has a claim on either.

Those questions will determine how much economic value reaches individual protocols and their tokens if tokenized funds, bonds and other assets bring more capital on-chain. In practice, the thesis can be assessed by tracking whether tokenized assets are distributed and actively traded, whether protocols generate measurable fees, and whether their token economics clearly connect that activity to holders.

This article reports Arthur Hayes’s views and provides general market analysis. It is not investment advice.

Original source: Coindoo