Interoperability Between CeFi and DeFi for RWA Management

April 14, 2024 | DeFi | Crypto | By Harsim Ranjit Singh

For institutions to effectively manage real-world assets (RWAs) using both centralized finance (CeFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi), interoperability between these two realms is crucial. CeFi (traditional banks, exchanges, custodians) and DeFi protocols need to communicate and transfer assets seamlessly to unlock the full benefits of tokenization. Achieving this interoperability involves bridging differences in technology, processes, and trust models.

1. CeFi On-Ramps and Off-Ramps to DeFi (and vice versa):

A fundamental aspect of interoperability is making it easy to move assets from traditional systems onto blockchains and back. This means:

• Tokenization Platforms: CeFi institutions (like banks or fintechs) that can tokenize traditional assets into blockchain tokens serve as on-ramps. Examples include Securitize, Paxos, Coinbase’s tokenization initiatives, or in-house bank projects. These take custody of a real asset or cash and issue a corresponding token on a blockchain. The smoother this process, the more fluidly assets can enter DeFi. Similarly, off-ramp means redeeming a token for the real asset or cash. For instance, if an institution holds a tokenized bond and wants the actual bond or cash, the process should be straightforward with predictable settlement. Some stablecoin issuers provide a model: instant minting and burning with fiat settlement in 1-2 days – RWA tokens need similar reliability.

• Custodian Bridges: Many institutions will keep assets with custodians, even tokenized ones. Qualified custodians that are integrated with DeFi (like Anchorage, Copper, or Fireblocks) effectively act as bridges. They can hold the keys to tokens and provide interfaces to deploy those tokens into DeFi protocols. For example, a custodian might allow a client to stake their tokenized T-bills in a DeFi lending pool without the client ever handling private keys, all within a compliance-approved environment. This requires custodians to support multi-chain connectivity, smart contract interactions, and continuous account reconciliation.

• Centralized Exchanges (CEX) enabling DeFi access: Some centralized exchanges are incorporating DeFi-like functionality (CeDeFi). For instance, Binance Tokenized offerings or FTX’s (formerly) tokenized stocks allowed CeFi traders to get exposure to RWAs via tokens, which could sometimes be withdrawn on-chain. Going forward, we might see exchanges acting as hubs where an institution can buy a tokenized bond on the exchange (familiar process), then withdraw it to their DeFi wallet for further use (like collateralizing a loan). The exchange handles KYC and issuance, while the DeFi side handles secondary use. Projects like Project Guardian hint at this, where DBS Bank and others integrated DeFi protocols in a controlled environment. In 2025, we may see major TradFi exchanges or infra providers (like SWIFT) launching services to custody and transfer tokenized assets across participating banks seamlessly.

How Assets Flow Between CeFi and DeFi

2. Data and Process Interoperability:

• Consistent Standards: A big challenge is that CeFi and DeFi often speak different “languages” – ISO20022 vs Solidity events, for example. Interoperability benefits from standard token schemas. Efforts like ERC-1400 (for security tokens) attempt to standardize how traditional security features (dividends, voting, transfer restrictions) are handled on Ethereum. If institutions adopt common standards, a DeFi protocol can more easily support any compliant token. Similarly, standards for identity (like Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) or verifiable credentials) allow CeFi-verified identities to be recognized by DeFi contracts. For example, a bank KYC’s a client and issues them a digital certificate. A DeFi platform can check that certificate (perhaps via an identity oracle) and allow that wallet to, say, hold a regulated RWA token. Such identity interoperability is being explored in projects like the Basel-led Mariana Project and others, often with zero-knowledge proofs so privacy is preserved.

• Oracle Integration: CeFi entities possess valuable data – credit scores, interest rates, asset valuations. Feeding that into DeFi requires robust oracles. Interoperability here means CeFi data systems connecting to on-chain oracles. As an example, a credit bureau or a loan servicing company could run a node that posts updates of a borrower’s payment status to a DeFi protocol that funded that loan. Another example is SWIFT and Chainlink’s collaboration to let banks trigger on-chain actions via off-chain messages. In tests, SWIFT could send instructions to multiple blockchains using Chainlink as an interpreter. This suggests a future where a bank’s existing payment system could directly initiate a token transfer or smart contract call (like paying coupon interest to bond token holders) without manual blockchain interaction. It’s machine-to-machine interoperability bridging banking software and smart contracts.

• Operational Workflows: CeFi institutions have established workflows for asset servicing – interest payments, corporate actions, etc. When those assets are tokenized and perhaps used in DeFi, those workflows need translation. If a bond pays interest, the issuer’s bank might drop cash into a traditional account. How does that reach token holders on-chain? Typically via the issuer or a trustee converting that cash to stablecoin and distributing to wallet addresses per the token registry. This requires new processes at banks/trustees: essentially automated stablecoin or CBDC payouts triggered by off-chain events. In pilot cases like the World Bank bond on Euroclear’s DLT, interest was paid on-chain in digital cash, requiring coordination between the traditional payment agent and the blockchain system. Over time, expect development of middleware that monitors off-chain events (like an interest payment in a bank account) and triggers an on-chain distribution, or vice versa.

3. Trust and Risk Interoperability:

• Aligning Settlement Finality: CeFi operates often on deferred settlement with finality in legal terms (T+2, etc.), whereas DeFi is near-instant with probabilistic finality (depending on blockchain confirmation). For robust interoperability, institutions often use an approach where atomic settlement is attempted – e.g., using a DvP (Delivery vs Payment) smart contract that only transfers a token if a corresponding fiat or another token is received. However, atomic between off-chain and on-chain is tricky (because off-chain can’t be atomic in the same sense). Some solutions: use escrow or intermediary. For example, Banco Santander did a blockchain bond where the cash leg was held in escrow such that when the bond token delivered, the escrow released cash off-chain – approximating atomic settlement across realms.

• Risk Management Systems Integration: Institutions want to see their total exposure combining CeFi and DeFi. If they have $10M in a DeFi pool and $10M of similar assets off-chain, they need a unified view for risk (like Value-at-Risk or regulatory capital). This means their risk systems (often CeFi-centric) must ingest data from DeFi positions in real-time. Some fintech solutions are emerging to provide consolidated dashboards for TradFi + DeFi holdings, converting on-chain positions to a format that risk officers can plug into existing models. Interoperability here is about data pipelines – e.g., hooking a bank’s treasury management system to DeFi via APIs that query blockchain (or via sub-custodian reports).

• Unified Governance and Compliance Oversight: If a firm is managing assets that partly sit in CeFi accounts and partly in DeFi, compliance officers will demand controls across both. Interoperability may also mean common governance: for instance, a rule that no more than 20% of portfolio can be on-chain might be enforced by a system that prevents transfers beyond that threshold. Achieving this might involve integrating smart contract controls (like whitelists and limits) with CeFi approval processes. An example: a company’s CFO must approve any token transfer above $X. Solutions like Fireblocks have policy engines doing that, bridging corporate policy with blockchain action.

How CeFi and DeFi Work Together for RWA

Examples in Action:

• JPMorgan’s Project Guardian showcased CeFi-DeFi interoperability: a permissioned Aave and Uniswap pool used verifiable credentials for participants and involved real-world FX transactions (SGD-JPY) using tokenized deposits. JPMorgan’s internal systems (Onyx) minted deposit tokens and interacted with DeFi pools, and upon trade completion, updated core banking records. This required integration between the bank’s ledger and the blockchain ledger. Ty Lobban from Onyx noted they achieved on-chain FX without stablecoins, using deposit tokens – a true cross-system feat.

• MakerDAO and Societe Generale: SocGen proposed in 2021 to borrow DAI against tokenized covered bonds (OFH tokens) they issued. This is a prime example of CeFi (a regulated bank with a covered bond) meeting DeFi (Maker). The challenges included legal structure (ensuring Maker had enforceable rights to the collateral) and technical (linking SocGen’s bond registry with Maker’s vault system). After lengthy work, Maker accepted collateral from a SocGen affiliate in 2022. It required a lot of custom integration and remains an isolated case, but it’s instructive: the bank essentially used DeFi as a repo market, needing interoperability in terms of legal agreements and systems.

Looking Forward:

We anticipate blurring lines: CeFi institutions might run their own DeFi-like networks (some talk of JPMorgan, DBS forming networks for RWAs) that interconnect with public DeFi for additional liquidity when needed – like plugging into public pools via gateways. Conversely, DeFi protocols may have CeFi front-ends for less crypto-native users. One could imagine a traditional bank app where clients invest in a fund that behind the scenes taps a DeFi yield strategy involving tokenized bonds.

To sum up, interoperability between CeFi and DeFi for RWA is about integrating:

• Technical systems (so assets and data flow easily),

• Processes (so compliance, settlement, and lifecycle events are handled correctly),

• Trust mechanisms (so each side can rely on the other’s assurances, whether through legal means or cryptographic proofs).

Institutions engaging in RWA DeFi should invest in this connective tissue – likely via partnerships with fintech/blockchain firms – as much as in the assets themselves. Those who master bridging CeFi and DeFi will operate with significant efficiency gains, accessing liquidity and innovation in DeFi while retaining the protections and scale of TradFi

Want to dive deeper into the impact of blockchain on supply chain management? Keep following Gravitas Crypto for the latest insights on trends and narratives driving the market.

Our story began with the deep desire to drive tangible, visible, and measurable outcomes for clients. With that as our guiding beacon, we launched Gravitas Consulting.

At Gravitas, we measure success by only one metric: each client’s satisfaction with our ability to drive Outcomes that matter.