Token standards are an architecture-level decision that determines if, and how, an asset tokenized can interact with regulated financial markets (rather than just being a tech detail). The choice of which tokenization standard to use affects the compliance, liquidity and institutional participation levels an asset tokenized will have and also the long-term viability of on-chain RWA markets as they reach $35 billion+ by 2026. As various tokenization standards were created for particular use cases, it is increasingly relevant to understand the differences between tokenization standards in order to be able to comprehend how cryptocurrencies interact with traditional banks.
A digital asset's smart contract Token Standard is a specification of how the asset should be treated (e.g., movement capabilities and ownership eligibility) plus any conditions necessary to allow for the completion of a transaction. Token standards initially only considered wallet compatibility and fungibility (whether two or more assets can be exchanged for one another).
However, when it comes to tokenizing Real World Assets (RWAs) there will be different sets of requirements than what exists today for securities, private credit and real estate investment funds because RWAs are highly regulated; therefore, when it comes to requirements there are specific laws within jurisdictions, compliance with deal prior to transfer and only authorised investors should hold the asset. The token standard does not comply with the above so will render the tokenisation illegal and not compliant.
ERC20 is by far the most commonly used token standard for digital currencies today. It is also the basis for many stable coins, DeFi applications, and in general, all things related to the Ethereum ecosystem. Simply put, ERC-20 has six primary characteristics that make it easy-to-use, widely-compatible, and intrinsically linked to smart contract infrastructure (wallets, protocols) within the protocol. The ERC-20 standard was designed for a permissionless and trustless system so that any person can send or receive an ERC-20 token to/from any wallet address without restrictions.
While regulated RWA tokenizations will need to be built on a completely different model, there is an inherent compliance gap when using the ERC-20 standard to represent securities since the issuer will need to add compliance functionality manually; this feature of the ERC-20 is brittle, costly to support, and does not meet institutional requirements. For some smaller products such as tokenized Treasury exposure, there are some RWA platforms that continue to use the ERC-20 standard, employing off-chain KYC processes; however, the public nature of the ERC-20 can become problematic when the platform grows too large.
ERC-1400 was created to bridge the compliance gap that exists with ERC-20 and allowed for the issuance of securities via smart contracts. As such, it allows for more complex structured debt products to be created and traded on-chain through support for transfer restrictions, creating of whitelisted investors, requiring that transfer documents be attached to the transfer of tokens, and enabling token splits into different tranches with different rights.
One way that ERC-1400 brought programmable controls to issuers of tokens was by providing them with the ability to set limitations on who can hold and trade their security tokens. This helped bridge the gap between regulated finance and cryptocurrency in a major way and allowed for Issuers to enforce corporate governance measures like anti-money laundering and know-your-customer (AML/KYC) requirements on security token holders.
ERC-1400 is also limited by its inherent architecture. Transfers made using ERC-1400 require validation via a unique key that is issued off-chain, which adds significant delays to the settlement process and results in higher costs associated with the transfer of securities.
Finally, ERC-1400 is limited by the lack of modularity in its compliance framework, which makes it more challenging to manage compliance across multiple jurisdictions in real-time as tokenized real-world assets become more prevalent in the global marketplace.
The final official Ethereum standard for compliance's only token standard will be ERC -3643; formerly called Tokeny Solutions as I) of T-REX Standard when created in Luxembourg and managed now by ERC3643 Association; they use the principles of compliance to build regulatory logic into the token instead of building extra logic on top of the existing tokens at the time of writing. There is a comprehensive compliance system called ONCHAINID with all validated KYC/AML records linked directly to the wallet to ensure that every transfer is checked against the on-chain identities of both parties conducting the transaction before the transaction takes place.
If either party fails to present valid authentication documentation or meet the USP conditions associated with that asset in their jurisdiction, in the case of any type of relationship (e.g., a person or entity) they will be prohibited from completing the transaction due to the protocol's legitimate refusal of service to non-compliant transactions and non-compliance with contractual obligations to validate party information. A non-compliant transfer will not happen; therefore, no transfer will take place. An invalid transfer cannot occur simply due to a contractual obligation not making it happen rather than being prohibited from happening by the transferor. There is no 'soft check' at the protocol level or an assurance of completion via the platform level.
ERC-3643 offers a range of advantages for institutional capital markets due to its ability to carry out compulsory transfers for regulated assets under specific legal circumstances, such as batch transfers and freezing tokens, thereby meeting compliance requirements matching those found in many fiat regulatory environments. It also has an integrated modular compliance framework that allows for easy application of unique compliance rules in multiple jurisdictions without modifying the core contract, overcoming the significant difficulties presented by ERC-1400 with respect to the complexity of cross-border regulations. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins noted the legal compliance capabilities inherent in ERC-3643 during a speech on U.S. leadership in the Digital Assets Sector in July 2025, signifying that the regulatory bodies are recognizing that compliance infrastructure will be necessary at the token level. As a result, ERC-3643 is currently the most thoroughly established and successful implementation/compliance-compliant token standard available for trading, having accomplished the tokenization of over $28 billion worth of regulated assets and having received a 10/10 security audit score from Hacken.
The larger RWA crypto ecosystem has many additional standards that serve different purposes beyond the three main standards (ERC-20, ERC-1400, and ERC-3643) with regards to RWA. In particular, ERC-721 is helpful for tokenizing real estate and/or other unique assets, where each token must be unique because these assets are not fungible. ERC-1155 is also effective for tokenizing mixed-asset portfolios by allowing users to combine both fungible and non-fungible tokens into one smart contract. For yield-generating pools that wrap tokenized Treasuries or credit products in DeFi protocols, ERC-4626 is the underlying standard because it standardizes the structure of vaults for yield-generating assets. ERC-4626 and ERC-3643 can coexist, but they do not replace ERC-3643 for the primary issuance of regulated securities; they provide different layers of the on-chain financial stack.
When designing a digital asset in RWA, the token standard is where we see both technical architecture and regulatory realities intersect. For a long time now, ERC-20 has been the most popular token standard in decentralized finance (DeFi), however due to its open-source nature, it does not comply with the basic requirements for compliant tokenization of most high-value, real-world assets. While ERC-1400 has attempted to establish a regulated token design, it falls short of providing all the required elements necessary for cross-border institutional tokenization in a dynamic, modular compliance environment. As a result of a variety of factors including mass adoption of use cases through large scale production implementations, public acknowledgement by regulators of the validity of this approach, and the foundational fact that compliance must be built into the token itself in order to remain a viable solution for the simultaneous presence of institutional capital, legal enforceability, and international regulatory scrutiny, ERC-3643 is viewed by many as the most comprehensive solution to this gap.
Just Now
Dear LBank User
Our online customer service system is currently experiencing connection issues. We are working actively to resolve the problem, but at this time we cannot provide an exact recovery timeline. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
If you need assistance, please contact us via email and we will reply as soon as possible.
Thank you for your understanding and patience.
LBank Customer Support Team