What tokenization genuinely solves
Settlement speed, fractional ownership, programmable transfer restrictions, continuous trading hours, and transparent on-chain records of who holds what.
For instruments where settlement has historically taken days and minimum sizes were large, this is a substantive improvement rather than a repackaging.
What it does not solve
Whether the asset exists, whether it is encumbered, whether the custodian is solvent, and whether the valuation is honest. The chain records a token; it cannot verify a building, a loan book or a bar of metal.
This is the oracle problem in its most consequential form, and no amount of on-chain sophistication removes it.
Attestation frequency is the practical measure of how much the record is worth. A monthly report means the on-chain supply can be wrong for up to a month before any external party checks it. Daily reporting by an independent firm is meaningfully stronger, and it is rare.
Legal enforceability
If the issuer fails, your recourse is a legal claim in whatever jurisdiction the structure sits, against an entity that may be a special-purpose vehicle with limited assets. Token holders have sometimes ranked behind other creditors.
The quality of the legal wrapper matters more than the quality of the smart contract, and it is harder to evaluate.
What to verify
Who holds the asset, whether an independent party attests to holdings and how often, which jurisdiction governs, what the redemption process is in practice, and whether transfers are restricted to approved addresses.
FBT Swap presents market data for tokenized instruments with the source named. It does not custody, attest to or redeem real-world assets, and shows an unavailable state rather than estimating a value it cannot verify.