Real-world asset (RWA) credit vaults are attracting increasing amounts of capital into tokenized lending, but investors may not have the creditor rights they expect, according to Jeff Amico, chief operating officer at GensynAI.
Amico says users can receive a yield-bearing stablecoin while the underlying loan and collateral are held by separate entities. That structure may leave investors dependent on a platform to repay them, rather than giving them a direct legal claim against the borrower or the assets supporting the loan.
In practical terms, investors may be “trusting the platform/company to pay them back”, Amico said.
RWA lending is one of the crypto industry’s most prominent attempts to link blockchain markets with traditional credit. However, Amico believes the legal arrangements behind some credit vaults have not developed at the same pace as the products themselves.
He said investors should not begin their assessment with the advertised yield. The first step should be to establish who is legally responsible for repayment and what protections are available if the borrower fails to meet its obligations.
“The two questions to ask are: who legally owes me money and what are the credit enhancements that ensure I get repaid,” he said.
Those safeguards can include collateral, first-loss capital or other arrangements intended to absorb losses before investors are affected. But the presence of collateral does not automatically mean a token holder can enforce a claim against it.
That issue can become especially significant during insolvency or restructuring. The contractual relationship between the different parties will determine who is able to make a claim and where they rank in the repayment hierarchy.
Amico warned that investors without a formal lending agreement could be left in a much weaker position.
“If you didn’t [have an agreement], then you are not in a good spot if the borrower defaults,” he said.
He also argued that a platform’s terms of service may seek to disclaim liability for the platform itself, leaving users with limited recourse if a loan goes wrong.
For investors who do not have legal expertise, Amico suggested using artificial intelligence tools such as Claude or GPT to help examine lending documents. These systems may help identify important clauses, although complicated agreements or large investments could still require advice from a qualified lawyer.
He pointed to Pareto and FalconX as examples of a structure that offers stronger protections.
The example highlights a central tension in tokenized credit. Crypto markets have traditionally prioritized open, permissionless access, while more formal lending arrangements can require KYC checks, minimum investment levels and, in some circumstances, rules limiting who can invest.
Amico described the issue as “a tradeoff between full permissionlessness and enforceable legal protections”.
For investors, that choice may come down to whether they prefer frictionless access or stronger legal rights if a borrower defaults.
He believes the lack of clear protections could become a major constraint on the RWA lending sector. Credit facilities may continue to fail, he warned, until depositors and lenders receive properly defined rights.
Traditional finance already offers a model for secured lending. It commonly includes clearly established creditor rights, perfected liens, enforcement agents and formal credit agreements. Amico’s view is that tokenized credit has not yet adopted those safeguards consistently.
Blockchain-based smart contracts can verify activity taking place onchain, but they cannot automatically establish whether an offchain borrower has breached a covenant or properly created and maintained collateral.
Without more robust offchain verification, platforms may simply pass on information provided by borrowers instead of independently confirming it. That could expose investors to risks that are not apparent from a vault’s yield or its onchain activity.
The RWA sector does not necessarily have to settle on one structure. Some investors may accept weaker protections in return for permissionless access. Others may be prepared to complete KYC checks or meet higher investment thresholds to secure direct creditor rights.
For Amico, the essential requirement is that investors understand the difference between the two approaches.
As tokenized credit expands, the legal structure beneath a vault may prove as important as the return it advertises. In strong market conditions, those distinctions can be easy to ignore. If a borrower defaults, they may determine whether a token holder has an enforceable claim or little more than a promise from a platform.
Grayscale says onchain vaults could become the next crypto product to achieve broad adoption in traditional finance. The structures resemble…
