Standard Chartered is making the case that Arbitrum could become one of the strongest performers in crypto through 2030, arguing that the network’s revenue mechanics may benefit as traditional finance ramps up onchain activity. In a note shared with Cointelegraph, Geoff Kendrick, the bank’s global head of digital assets research, pointed to Arbitrum’s economic design as a potential source of growth beyond crypto-native usage.

Kendrick said Arbitrum receives 10% of the net protocol revenue generated by businesses building on the network. He highlighted Robinhood Chain—an Ethereum layer-2 initiative tied to the online brokerage Robinhood—as an early test case for how tokenization-focused applications could shift Arbitrum’s financial profile. According to Kendrick, the impact has already been visible in the network’s revenue run rate.

Key takeaways

• Standard Chartered forecasts Arbitrum’s protocol revenue share could meaningfully grow as more traditional financial assets move onchain.
• Arbitrum’s design gives it 10% of net protocol revenue from companies building on the network.
• Standard Chartered credits Robinhood Chain with materially changing Arbitrum’s economics, projecting $5 million revenue in September.
• Kendrick expects those economics could support a multi-year rise in ARB, potentially reaching $10 by 2030.
• Key risks include tokenization adoption slowing and increased competition from other chains.

Why Standard Chartered thinks Arbitrum’s revenue can scale

At the center of Standard Chartered’s bullish outlook is the idea that Arbitrum’s growth is not just about user activity, but about the network’s share of protocol revenues. Kendrick framed the pathway as follows: as regulated institutions and financial firms bring more assets onto blockchain infrastructure—especially through tokenized real-world asset (RWA) products—layer-2 networks that support these deployments could capture recurring value.

Robinhood Chain is presented as a concrete example of that dynamic. In the note, Kendrick argued that its launch has already affected Arbitrum’s economics. He stated that, at the current run rate, Arbitrum is expected to generate $5 million in revenue in September, which he said is more than five times the level it was at before Robinhood Chain launched in July.

For investors and traders, this matters because it shifts the narrative from “layer-2 usage” alone to “layer-2 monetization.” If tokenized asset workflows generate sustained protocol revenue, the token incentives and long-term demand for the network’s native asset could plausibly benefit. Standard Chartered’s framing is essentially that the token’s value proposition is tied to business adoption and network economics rather than only retail activity.

From protocol economics to ARB price assumptions

On price, Kendrick’s view is aggressive but anchored to the bank’s revenue-based logic. He expects Arbitrum’s economics to support a steady increase in ARB through the rest of the decade, forecasting that the token could reach as high as $10 by 2030. The bank’s projection implies roughly a 70-fold increase from current levels.

Standard Chartered also contrasted its outlook for Arbitrum with its expectations for Bitcoin and Ether over the same period, saying its projected returns for ARB would be far higher. While price forecasts are inherently uncertain, the bank’s stated method is noteworthy: the thesis is built around a growing revenue stream for the protocol rather than purely speculative momentum.

At the time of the note, ARB was valued at around $0.14, according to CoinGecko, after gaining 86% over the past month.

Tokenized real-world assets are the engine in the model

Standard Chartered’s argument is heavily influenced by the momentum in tokenization. Kendrick pointed to cumulative RWA tokenization nearing $39 billion, citing RWA.xyz data. The bank also reiterated its broader forecast that tokenized assets could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028, as banks and asset managers bring more assets onchain.

In that scenario, layer-2 networks like Arbitrum are positioned as infrastructure providers. The bank’s logic is that when tokenization shifts from experiments to larger deployments, businesses building on these networks can generate net protocol revenue—part of which flows back to Arbitrum under the 10% share model.

Standard Chartered has previously tied its wider crypto views to tokenization growth, including a bullish stance toward Chainlink and the broader decentralized finance sector in the context of a growing onchain asset base. The Arbitrum note continues that through-line: as more “real-world” exposure is issued onchain, the infrastructure that supports issuance, settlement, and related services may capture more durable value.

Key uncertainties and competitive pressure

Despite its optimism, Kendrick highlighted risks that could derail the bank’s price framework. He identified two major uncertainties: a slower-than-expected pace of asset tokenization and more competition from alternate blockchains.

This is an important tension for readers to consider. Arbitrum’s potential upside depends not only on technical and adoption milestones, but also on whether tokenized assets concentrate on specific L2 ecosystems or diversify across multiple networks. If tokenization expands but spreads across competing platforms, Arbitrum’s revenue share—and therefore the earnings-to-token linkage Standard Chartered is leaning on—could be diluted.

There is also a timing element embedded in the forecast. Kendrick’s projected revenue run rate growth and the resulting ARB outlook assume that new deployments and monetization mechanisms ramp in a way that sustains protocol revenues over time. Any mismatch between “asset issuance growth” and “protocol monetization” would likely force the thesis to be recalibrated.

As the market digests this note, the next things to watch are whether tokenization activity on Ethereum layer-2s keeps accelerating and whether Robinhood Chain—or other tokenization-oriented deployments—continues to translate into measurable net protocol revenue for Arbitrum. The pace of tokenized asset adoption and the intensity of competition between alternative chains may determine how closely reality tracks Standard Chartered’s multi-year model.

X has launched its U.S. Cashtag Partner Program with five brokerage platforms, giving users a direct route from stock, ETF, and cryptocurrency discussions to eligible trading services.

X Cashtag Program connects tickers with trading platforms

X said in an official announcement that the Cashtag Partner Program has gone live in the United States with Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, Interactive Brokers, and Moomoo as its first participants.

When users tap a supported cashtag, they can view information tied to the stock, ETF, or cryptocurrency represented by the ticker. A new “Trade” option then lets them choose an available brokerage partner and continue the transaction on that company’s platform.

X does not appear to be executing the trades itself under the arrangement described in the announcement. Instead, the social platform connects users with participating financial companies, where account requirements, identity checks, asset availability, and other trading conditions apply.

Cashtags use a dollar sign before an asset symbol, such as $BTC for Bitcoin or $COIN for Coinbase shares. Traders already use the format to organize financial posts and follow conversations about specific assets. By attaching brokerage links to the feature, X has shortened the path between reading market commentary and opening a trading interface.

The program covers several types of financial companies. Coinbase, Gemini, and Kraken are known primarily for crypto trading, while Interactive Brokers provides access to stocks, options, futures, currencies, and other markets. Moomoo offers stocks, options, and cryptocurrency services through its respective regulated entities.

X did not provide a complete list of supported tickers in the announcement. Availability may differ across partners because each brokerage maintains its own product list and customer eligibility rules.

Smart cashtags laid the foundation for US trading links

As crypto.news reported in April, X introduced smart cashtags for iPhone users in the United States and Canada with live charts, asset-specific posts, and support for cryptocurrency contract addresses.

The earlier version allowed users to select the correct asset or smart contract when adding a ticker to a post. Selecting the cashtag opened a dedicated page containing price information and related discussions, reducing confusion between tokens that share similar names or ticker symbols.

Canadian users also received a trading link through Wealthsimple. At the time, X product head Nikita Bier said users in Canada would see a button that allowed them to move from a cashtag to the financial platform. U.S. trading had not yet been enabled through that rollout.

The new partner program brings the brokerage-link model to American users and increases the number of participating firms from the single Canadian integration. Its structure also keeps order execution within the brokerage selected by the user rather than adding an X-operated exchange to the social platform.

Mridul Singhai, X’s product engineering lead, said the feature narrows the distance between a ticker appearing on a timeline and the market linked to it. Users can open a live chart, read the conversation around an asset, and choose a partner when they decide to trade.

Live posts and price data remain part of the product. The trading button adds another action to the same asset page, but X has not said that a post, chart, or cashtag represents financial advice or a recommendation to transact.

Coinbase and Kraken extend X’s crypto trading route

For cryptocurrency users, the inclusion of Coinbase, Gemini, and Kraken gives the program connections to three established U.S.-focused exchanges. Customers still need an eligible account with the chosen company, and the exchange determines which assets and services are available in each jurisdiction.

Kraken has also expanded beyond its original crypto business. In August, the exchange added 7,000 stocks for eligible European Economic Area customers, placing traditional U.S.-listed shares beside more than 700 tokenized xStocks and over 600 crypto assets.

Kraken entered U.S. stock trading in 2025 before extending the service into Europe through its Cyprus investment firm. Its EEA product lets eligible customers choose between traditional shares and tokenized representations, although the products have different structures and regulatory conditions.

Earlier in 2026, Kraken-backed xStocks also introduced on-chain trading for more than 70 tokenized equities across Ethereum and Solana. Kraken said in March that the platform had processed $25 billion in total volume, including $3.5 billion in on-chain transactions, and had reached 80,000 on-chain holders.

Coinbase has likewise added U.S. stocks and ETFs to its main platform, allowing eligible customers to manage traditional securities and crypto through one account. The Cashtag Program gives X users another entry point to participating services without transferring the actual trade to X.

American users remain subject to each provider’s onboarding process, state-level availability, and product restrictions. A cashtag may therefore display market information even when a particular user cannot trade the asset through every listed partner.

X ties financial conversations to its Everything App plan

Monique Pintarelli, SpaceXAI’s head of global advertising, described the partner program as a way to connect financial discussions on X with an action that users can take through a brokerage.

“People come to X to discover what’s happening, shape the conversation, and act in real-time on what matters to them,” Pintarelli said. “Our Cashtag partners make it possible to move seamlessly from discovery and conversation to a brokerage, without breaking the moment.”

The rollout adds another financial feature to X as the company develops its planned Everything App model. In March, an X Money examination described the service as an in-platform wallet designed for peer-to-peer transfers, bill payments, and other financial products.

X Money has since rolled out peer-to-peer transfers, direct deposits, a debit card, and yields on eligible balances. Its payment functions remain separate from the Cashtag Partner Program, which routes investment activity to outside brokerages rather than holding or executing the trade within the social platform.

X previously secured money-transmitter licenses across more than 40 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., and registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as part of its payment-service preparations. The company also partnered with Visa to support transfers between bank accounts and X Money wallets.

Singhai said users who post or tap a ticker can now reach a live chart, follow the discussion around the asset, and continue to one of the brokerage partners. X has not disclosed when the Cashtag Partner Program may add more financial firms or expand beyond the United States.

US crypto policy momentum hit a wall as the Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the proposed CLARITY Act, leaving digital-asset firms to rely on agency rulemaking and shifting interpretations rather than a clear statutory framework. The procedural vote came up short of the 60 votes required to move forward—49-50 on a motion to invoke cloture.

Industry leaders described the outcome as disappointing but not necessarily final, pointing to potential regulatory action from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Still, lawyers and executives warn that without legislation, compliance timelines and market planning could remain exposed to ongoing administrative discretion.

Key takeaways

• The Senate voted 49-50 on a cloture motion for the CLARITY Act—short of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the bill.
• Crypto firms are increasingly looking to SEC and CFTC rulemaking to “fill the legislative gap,” rather than expecting near-term certainty from Congress.
• Legal executives argue that agency guidance may prolong case-by-case assessments, increasing compliance burden and prolonging uncertainty for budgeting and product rollout.
• A reconsideration move by Senator Thom Tillis keeps the possibility of another cloture attempt alive, but timing uncertainty remains high.

Why the CLARITY Act’s procedural failure matters

At the center of Tuesday’s outcome was the Senate’s failure to invoke cloture, a procedural step that determines whether debate on the CLARITY Act can move forward. While the vote does not kill the bill outright, it delays the legislative path and underscores how difficult it can be to secure consensus in a divided chamber.

Industry executives said the result creates a meaningful setback—especially because the stakes are not only legal theory. A legislative framework would be expected to reduce the unpredictability of how digital assets are classified and regulated across different product types. Without it, market participants may remain dependent on regulator-by-regulator and fact-specific interpretations.

As this gap persists, the question for investors, builders, and exchanges becomes less about the promise of a future law and more about whether agencies can deliver stable, consistent rules quickly enough to support real-world planning.

Regulators as the next avenue for clarity

In the immediate aftermath, executives highlighted what they viewed as the most plausible alternative: rulemaking from the SEC and the CFTC. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said on X that continued regulatory work by both agencies could still provide the clarity firms need.

According to Garlinghouse, “the SEC, under Chair Atkins, and the CFTC, under Chair Selig, will continue to work hard to issue rules” to address the gap left by the stalled legislation. The comments align with earlier remarks from SEC Chair Paul Atkins during the Solana Policy Institute Summit on Monday, where he reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to clearer crypto rules regardless of legislative progress.

That “agency-first” approach may help address certain questions faster than Congress can. But it also changes how certainty is produced: rather than coming from a statute that applies broadly, clarity may depend on a series of rule proposals, comment periods, and final determinations—each of which can evolve over time.

Executives warn about “temporary reprieve” and case-by-case risk

Legal and compliance leaders cautioned that rejecting the bill may leave firms exposed to administrative discretion. NEAR chief legal officer Abhishek Vaidyanathan said the lack of legislation would force continued reliance on agency guidance rather than a definitive statutory framework.

In particular, Vaidyanathan argued that firms preparing budgets for 2027 would likely face another prolonged delay, pulling them back toward “case-by-case judgments and repeated legal work.” In his view, that is not just a legal inconvenience—it also affects how counterparties price risk when regulatory interpretation remains in flux.

Similarly, Bitget Wallet chief operating officer Alvin Kan told Cointelegraph that the bill’s failure maintains uncertainty about how securities, commodities, and money-transmission rules apply across different products. The practical effect is that product categories can face different compliance pathways even when they serve similar users, and the line between those categories can remain contested.

Another Senate attempt and what happens after this Congress

Despite Tuesday’s setback, the CLARITY Act discussion is not over. Senator Thom Tillis moved to reconsider the failed attempt, potentially allowing another cloture vote. That kept the door open for renewed procedural progress in the current session.

1inch chief legal officer Orest Gavryliak characterized the Tuesday result as a delay rather than a verdict, noting that legislation of this scale rarely moves in a straight line and that another cloture vote can be pursued.

Still, the odds of passage before the end of the current congressional term are far from certain. Vaidyanathan suggested that the “next Congress” may be the more likely opportunity to tackle crypto market structure, implying that legislative timing and election-driven priorities could become barriers.

He also pointed to near-term calendar constraints: the House has reportedly canceled weeks of September 21 and 28, while the Senate’s state work period begins October 5 ahead of the November 3 election. Those scheduling dynamics matter because even when support exists, floor time and procedural momentum can be difficult to sustain.

Market sentiment around the bill’s prospects also softened. Polymarket odds of the CLARITY Act being signed in 2026 fell to 5% on Tuesday, the lowest probability since the market opened in January, indicating that traders and bettors rapidly adjusted expectations following the cloture failure.

For readers trying to anticipate what changes next, the key watchpoints are whether Tillis’s reconsideration leads to another cloture vote and, in parallel, how quickly the SEC and CFTC move from commitments into concrete rule proposals and final guidance—because those will determine whether firms get durable clarity or continue to operate in a regime of shifting administrative interpretation.

Stablecoins may be doing more than speeding up crypto payments. Speaking at Queen’s University Belfast on Tuesday, Carolyn Wilkins of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee argued that the rise of dollar-linked “digital dollars” could further entrench the US dollar’s role in global finance—while also creating a channel through which stress in US Treasury markets could spread back to stablecoin issuers.

Wilkins highlighted how dollar-denominated stablecoins can simplify cross-border settlement and extend access to dollar-linked assets beyond traditional US banking rails. She tied that convenience to a straightforward market consequence: greater demand for US Treasuries, especially for reserves backing stablecoin issuance.

Key takeaways

• Dollar-linked stablecoins can increase US Treasury demand by extending reserve access to dollar assets beyond the US, according to Bank of England financial policy committee member Carolyn Wilkins.
• Stablecoin issuers are already large holders of Treasury bills, with figures cited showing nearly $150 billion held at end-2025 by Tether and Circle, and about $33 billion of purchases during 2025.
• Wilkins warned the relationship works both ways: in a large-scale redemption event, issuers could be forced to sell Treasuries, potentially amplifying volatility in an already pressured market.
• The stablecoin market remains overwhelmingly dollar-oriented, with the US dollar accounting for 98% of stablecoin value, giving it a “first-mover advantage,” Wilkins said.
• In the UK, regulators are moving to facilitate development of stablecoins through sandboxes and finalized rules, while the Bank of England experiments with digital money for cross-border use cases.

How dollar stablecoins could strengthen Treasuries—and the dollar

Wilkins’ core argument is about incentive alignment. Dollar stablecoins, by design, are meant to track the US dollar, so expanding their use naturally encourages broader participation in dollar settlement and dollar-linked asset access. As stablecoins become a more common bridge for international transfers, the demand for dollar exposure can rise not only among traders, but also among institutions and intermediaries that prefer simpler settlement mechanics than traditional correspondent banking.

In her remarks, Wilkins specifically pointed to Treasury demand. She cited data indicating that Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC (USDC) held nearly $150 billion in Treasury bills at the end of 2025, and bought about $33 billion worth during the year—illustrating that at least for the biggest issuers, Treasuries are not peripheral. They are integral to how dollar stablecoin reserves are positioned.

The implication for investors is practical: when stablecoin growth continues, Treasury demand from reserve managers tied to stablecoin issuance can become a persistent, if evolving, source of incremental demand. That matters in a market where Treasury liquidity and funding conditions can have wide knock-on effects across rates and collateral markets.

The other side of the trade: redemptions and volatility risk

Wilkins also emphasized that stablecoins are not a one-way beneficiary of dollar liquidity. Because reserves are connected to marketable US government debt, issuer balance-sheet dynamics can become a financial stability variable when redemption flows surge.

Her warning was specific in direction: at sufficient scale, mass stablecoin redemptions could compel issuers to sell Treasury bills. If that happens during periods of market strain, the forced selling mechanism could contribute to higher volatility—an effect that could be amplified by the fact that Treasuries are widely used as collateral and a benchmark across the financial system.

This is the central tension in the stablecoin-reserves narrative: the same structure that supports stablecoin issuance and cross-border convenience can transmit liquidity pressures when flows reverse quickly. Readers should treat the “stability” of a stablecoin as distinct from the stability of the markets used to back it.

Stablecoins remain dollar-dominated—UK regulators are still watching

The Bank of England official framed dollar dominance as a key structural feature. The stablecoin market is described in the remarks as overwhelmingly tied to the US dollar, with the dollar accounting for 98% of stablecoin value. Wilkins characterized that as a “considerable first-mover advantage,” reinforcing why dollar stablecoins could keep scaling faster than alternatives.

Broader adoption trends were also referenced in the context of market size, including reporting that stablecoin circulation has surpassed $300 billion. Even with continued growth, the near-total concentration in dollar-linked products suggests that, for now, the US dollar will likely remain the primary beneficiary of global stablecoin usage.

For the UK, the policy question is whether—and how—to develop stablecoins in a way that captures benefits without importing unnecessary risk. Wilkins’ remarks align with ongoing UK regulatory and experimental steps aimed at shaping how these products could fit into a broader financial system.

UK’s regulatory push: sandboxes, finalized rules, and digital pound tests

While dollar stablecoins dominate the global picture, British pound-denominated stablecoins have been slower to gain traction. Still, UK regulators have taken concrete steps this year to make local issuance and experimentation easier.

The Financial Conduct Authority began testing prospective stablecoin issuers through a dedicated regulatory sandbox and finalized rules for UK stablecoin issuance in June. The Bank of England has also been experimenting with digital money, including work to assess whether stablecoins and a simulated digital pound could be used together for cross-border trade payments, according to coverage of the Bank’s interoperability testing.

Wilkins’ comments also come in the broader context of the Bank of England adjusting its stance. Earlier coverage noted industry criticism of proposed rules and a subsequent softening of the UK stablecoin regime, reflecting a policy balance between innovation and oversight.

For market participants, this matters because local frameworks can influence which stablecoin projects get launched, which institutions are willing to integrate them, and how quickly alternative fiat currencies could gain traction outside the US dollar orbit.

What to watch next is whether UK and broader European efforts can diversify currency exposure in stablecoin reserves—or whether the dollar’s structural advantages continue to pull most growth back toward US Treasuries. Equally important will be monitoring redemption stress scenarios: if large-scale outflows coincide with Treasury-market strain, Wilkins’ warning about volatility transmission could move from theory to a measurable market dynamic.

The bulk of the spending—$21.7 billion—comes from replacing munitions expenditures, the CBO found, including $13.1 billion for missile defense interceptors and $7.3 billion for land-attack cruise missiles. Other costs include repairing or replacing equipment, increased flying hours for air operations and transportation, and increased fuel costs. However, it does not factor in the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East.

The separate report from the Defense Department’s inspector general, released a day before the CBO’s, estimated the cost of repairing “physical damage from Iranian strikes” to U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE at approximately $184 million. It also determined that throughout Operation Epic Fury the U.S. military has spent $22.3 billion on munitions and has lost around $3.7 billion in aircraft and equipment, including four destroyed F-15 fighter jets, seven KC-135 tanker aircraft, a dozen damaged or destroyed KC-135 refueling aircraft, and the loss of up to 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones. 

Standard Chartered’s Geoff Kendrick is making a pointed bet on Arbitrum’s long-term upside, arguing that the layer-2 network could become a standout beneficiary as traditional finance accelerates the shift toward onchain and tokenized assets.

In a note shared with Cointelegraph, Kendrick highlights Arbitrum’s revenue model as a key reason for optimism: the network receives 10% of net protocol revenue generated by companies building on it. He points to Robinhood Chain—developed by the online brokerage Robinhood—as an early, high-visibility example of that mechanism in action.

Key takeaways

• Standard Chartered expects Arbitrum’s revenue share (10% of net protocol revenue) to translate into stronger token economics.
• According to Kendrick, Robinhood Chain materially increased Arbitrum’s run-rate revenue after launching in July.
• Arbitrum revenue is projected to reach $5 million in September, the bank says—more than five times the pre-Robinhood level.
• Standard Chartered’s base case targets ARB potentially rising to as high as $10 by 2030, contingent on tokenization growth and competition.
• The bank flags slower-than-expected asset tokenization and competing layer-1/layer-2 ecosystems as the main risks.

Why Standard Chartered thinks Arbitrum’s token economics can expand

At the center of Standard Chartered’s outlook is the idea that Arbitrum is not only a destination for crypto-native users, but also an infrastructure layer for tokenization and onchain financial services. Kendrick’s argument ties network growth to economics that ultimately flow back to the system—and by extension, to the ARB token.

In the note, Kendrick emphasizes that Arbitrum receives 10% of net protocol revenue produced by companies building on the network. He also credits the arrival of Robinhood Chain with “materially” shifting Arbitrum’s economics. The comparison Kendrick makes is straightforward: at the current run rate, Arbitrum is expected to generate $5 million in revenue in September, which he says is more than five times its level prior to Robinhood Chain’s launch in July.

That framing matters for investors because it positions Arbitrum’s upside as more than speculative usage growth; it’s anchored to a revenue-share structure that could scale as new onchain products are deployed on its infrastructure.

Robinhood Chain as an early test case for the revenue model

Kendrick describes Robinhood Chain as the first major example of how traditional finance activity could influence Arbitrum’s economics. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted Robinhood’s launch of an Ethereum layer-2 testnet aimed at tokenized assets.

Standard Chartered’s assessment suggests that the market may be underestimating the direct financial linkage between deployments on Arbitrum and the network’s protocol revenue intake. If the bank’s projections hold, that linkage could strengthen the case for ARB not just as a governance token, but as a proxy for the economics of Arbitrum’s expanding developer and enterprise footprint.

From revenue growth to ARB price targets—what’s bullish, what’s conditional

Building on the revenue outlook, Kendrick expects Arbitrum’s economics to support a steady rise in ARB over the coming years. Standard Chartered’s projection reaches as high as $10 by 2030. From current levels, Kendrick frames that outcome as roughly a 70-fold increase.

The bank also contrasts that trajectory with its projected returns for Bitcoin and Ether over the same period, suggesting that Arbitrum—under this scenario—could outperform major benchmark assets in risk-adjusted terms. Still, Kendrick’s note is explicit about uncertainties.

He flags two main risks to the ARB projection: a slower-than-expected pace of asset tokenization and increased competition from alternative blockchain networks. Those concerns are important because they go directly to the assumptions behind Arbitrum’s revenue expansion—namely, whether tokenization demand grows quickly enough and whether enterprises choose competing ecosystems for their layer-2 or tokenized-asset infrastructure.

Tokenized asset growth is the bigger bet

Standard Chartered’s thesis leans heavily on the broader market trend of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). According to RWA.xyz data, the cumulative value of tokenized real-world assets is nearly $39 billion.

In its note, Kendrick reiterates the bank’s forecast that tokenized assets could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028 as banks and asset managers bring more assets onchain. Under that pathway, Arbitrum is positioned as a potential beneficiary because it enables companies to build their own layer-2 networks while collecting a share of net protocol revenue generated by deployments.

Standard Chartered has previously connected tokenization expectations to other parts of the crypto ecosystem, citing the growth of tokenized RWAs as supportive of its bullish outlook for Chainlink and for the wider decentralized finance sector.

For readers, the next signals to watch are whether tokenization adoption accelerates faster than anticipated—and whether Arbitrum keeps attracting major deployments without losing share to rival ecosystems. Kendrick’s projections hinge on that pace, and any divergence could materially change the implied path from protocol revenue growth to ARB performance.