TradFi Tokenization: choosing blockchains by cost stability, finality, and compliance

A Chainalysis report argues that there is no single “best” chain for TradFi tokenization. The right blockchain depends on the asset and its operational requirements. The article frames the decision as trade-offs across five dimensions: transaction cost stability, throughput vs. time to finality, CEX-to-CEX contagion risk, illicit exposure, and governance. Key findings for TradFi tokenization include: (1) Predictable fees matter more than low fees alone. TRON and some Ethereum/L2 networks (notably Base and Optimism) show more stable daily fees, while Bitcoin and Arbitrum exhibit higher “tail risk,” meaning congestion can cause sudden fee spikes. (2) Institutions must separate raw TPS from settlement finality. Solana leads in throughput, but Arbitrum ranks best for time to finality. For RWA-style high-value settlement, “soft finality” on L2s is not the same as hard finality on the base layer, adding L1 processing risk and settlement delays. On systemic risk, the report measures dependence on centralized exchange liquidity. Solana shows stronger institutional CEX dependency at times, raising contagion risk compared with the more resilient baselines of Bitcoin and Ethereum. For compliance, the report maps network liquidity against illicit exposure. It highlights Ethereum, Solana, and Base as being in a “TradFi sweet spot” with deep institutional liquidity and illicit share below ~1% (as measured by known illicit entities). It also stresses the need for real-time monitoring tools (e.g., transaction monitoring and address screening) to scale across networks. Overall, TradFi tokenization should be built using a decision matrix rather than hype—matching each asset’s settlement and audit needs to the most suitable chain architecture.