RWA tokenization cost index

Every public cost figure we could find, normalised into one component grid, with what each range excludes and where sources contradict each other.

Last verified 22 July 2026 · 19 sources

Of 130 published figures collected from 19 providers, 100 came from sources selling the service they were pricing. No independent audited price dataset exists for this market. Read the ranges below as evidence of what is claimed, not as a quote.

The institutional reports that do exist — from the IMF, EY and others — measure the savings tokenization promises, not what an issuer actually spends. No issuer has published a real post-project breakdown. So the entire public price record for tokenizing a real-world asset is vendor marketing, quoted secondhand until it hardens into a number people repeat. This page is the first attempt to line those numbers up, keep each one's source and date attached, and mark where they cannot both be right.

Why the ranges are so wide

The spread within a single component is not market variance — it is sources measuring different work under one word. "Legal structuring" in one quote is a classification memo; in another it bundles the prospectus, the licensing application and an audit. "SPV formation" is a $110 statutory filing to one provider and $25,000 of legal work to the next, and both call it formation cost. Until the scope is pinned down, the range is noise. The scope column is the part that turns it back into signal.

Each range covers one currency only — the group with the most rows. Figures in other currencies, and figures expressed as a percentage of AUM or of the raise, are counted separately and never folded into the range. Nothing is converted or averaged. Individual rows below keep their original currency, cadence and source date.

Where sources contradict each other

These are the disagreements worth knowing about before you accept any quote.

Dubai VARA, year one

Three incompatible pictures. An official schedule gives an application fee of AED 40,000–100,000 with annual supervision of AED 80,000–200,000. One advisory source gives USD 100,000–330,000 all-in. A third gives AED 2.1 million. The last most likely folds paid-up capital into "cost" without saying so.

MiCA CASP authorisation, year one

EUR 92,000–110,000 from one adviser against EUR 415,000–690,000 from another. Both may be correct: the first counts documents and staffing, the second adds a full CCO/MLRO stack, ICT obligations and external audit.

A single vendor against itself

One provider publishes a cost index stating USD 25,000–90,000 for a USD 10M tokenised private fund, and a playbook stating "low-to-mid six figures inclusive of legal" for a USD 5–50M deal. Same provider, same quarter.

SPV formation

USD 110 against USD 15,000–25,000 for the same Delaware structure. The first counts the statutory fee, the second counts the legal work. Both call it "formation cost".

All rows

Sorted by component. Every row keeps the wording of its source.

platform fee

Scope: Mixes one-time setup, monthly SaaS and full custom development in one label.

Not in the headline range: 1 row priced as a percentage rather than an amount.

smart contract dev

Scope: Varies by token standard. Vendors quoting the low end sell self-serve products.

Not in the headline range: 1 row in CHF (CHF 20,000–CHF 100,000); 1 row in EUR (€20,000–€50,000).

marketing

Scope: Not a legal or regulatory cost. Included because sources bundle it into totals.

legal structuring

Scope: Sources do not separate structuring from offering documents, and most do not state the regulatory regime.

Not in the headline range: 2 rows in EUR (€15,000–€160,000); 1 row in KYD (CI$50,000–CI$200,000); 1 row in CHF (CHF 30,000–CHF 80,000).

audit

Scope: Ranges mix smart-contract security review with asset valuation and due diligence.

Not in the headline range: 1 row in EUR (€20,000–€50,000).

ongoing compliance

Scope: Some sources count filings only, others include CCO/MLRO staffing and audit.

Not in the headline range: 2 rows in EUR (€3,000–€250,000); 1 row in AED (AED 80,000–AED 200,000); 1 row in CHF (CHF 32,000–CHF 100,000); 1 row in KYD (CI$30,000–CI$100,000).

kyc per investor

Scope: Per investor, not per project. Cannot be added to project-level rows.

spv govt fee

Scope: Statutory registration fee only. Excludes legal work.

Not in the headline range: 1 row in EUR (€2,800–€2,800).

spv legal setup

Scope: Legal work only. Excludes statutory fees, registered office and ongoing accounting.

Not in the headline range: 2 rows in EUR (€3,000–€15,000); 1 row in CHF (CHF 5,000–CHF 15,000); 1 row in KYD (CI$5,000–CI$15,000).

TOTAL

Scope: Whole-project estimates. Component coverage differs between sources, so totals are not comparable.

Not in the headline range: 3 rows in EUR (€55,000–€690,000); 1 row in CHF (CHF 85,000–CHF 325,000).

legal opinion

Scope: Covers a classification memorandum only. Offering documents and prospectuses are priced separately.

transfer agent

Scope: Some sources quote setup, others annual, some both.

licence govt fee

Scope: Regulator fee only. Excludes advisory work and paid-up capital.

Not in the headline range: 2 rows in AED (AED 40,000–AED 100,000); 1 row in USD ($50,000–$150,000); 1 row in CHF (CHF 500–CHF 500); 1 row in KYD (CI$10,000–CI$10,000).

licence application

Scope: Advisory fees only. Regulator fees and capital requirements are separate.

Not in the headline range: 1 row in USD ($10,000–$30,000); 1 row in KYD (CI$5,000–CI$5,000); 1 row in AED (AED 2,100,000–AED 2,100,000).

offering docs

Scope: Prospectus or information document. Excludes classification analysis.

custody

Scope: Integration cost and AUM-based fees are different things quoted under one heading.

Not in the headline range: 1 row priced as a percentage rather than an amount.

listing fee

Scope: Venue admission only. Does not create liquidity.

banking onboarding

Scope: Only one source itemises this. Others fold it into structuring.

How to use these numbers

Do not budget from this page, and do not let a vendor budget you from theirs. Use the ranges the way a buyer uses a comparison: to know what a fair quote looks like before you ask for one, and to spot the line items a proposal has quietly left out.

The cheapest way to make quotes comparable is to send every provider the same brief — one legal structure, the jurisdictions in play, the investor count and type, the distribution route, the token's transfer rules, and the period of ongoing service you want priced. Without that, you are comparing a classification memo against a full offering, and the numbers will not line up no matter how carefully anyone quotes.

Two figures are almost always missing from a headline. The first is recurring cost — most sources price setup and go quiet on the annual compliance, audit and transfer-agent fees that outlast it. The second is the work the token does not touch: valuation, title, tax structuring, custody and the distribution arrangement that decides whether there is any liquidity at all. If a quote is silent on those, it is not cheaper. It is smaller.