Maritime RWA Tokenisation: Why Ships are Different and How to Scale

Ships are among the most valuable operating assets in global trade, yet participation in ship ownership has remained structurally closed. The reason is not only the size of capital required. It is that governance, disclosure, and enforceability are difficult to standardise for a mobile asset operating across jurisdictions.

A vessel is not a static RWA like real estate. It moves between legal regimes, operates under flag and port-state requirements, and its outcomes are driven by operating decisions: chartering choices, technical management quality, maintenance discipline, downtime, and compliance. So the barrier has never been “access” alone. It is whether the structure remains reliable under stress—who decides what, what information is disclosed, how often it is independently verified, and what rights minority participants can actually enforce if actions diverge from agreed terms.

Global maritime trade volumes reached 12,292 million tons in 2023, which reflects both the scale of the sector and its role in the real economy. The question now being tested in policy and market discussions is not whether ships can be “represented digitally.” The question is what must be true, legally, operationally, and in governance, for maritime RWAs to scale without weakening market integrity.

This article explains why ships behave differently from many other RWAs and sets out the non-negotiables that separate institutional-grade maritime tokenisation from short-lived experiments.

The two-sided market problem

Maritime ownership sits inside a persistent two-sided constraint.

On the shipowner side

Ships are capital-intensive, long-life assets. Financing cycles are shaped by regulatory retrofits, class requirements, emissions rules, and cyclic freight markets. Owners need capital that can absorb volatility while preserving operational control over chartering, technical management, and maintenance, because those choices determine safety, compliance, and earnings.

Traditional channels each introduce friction. Bank lending can reduce flexibility through covenants and refinancing risk, especially at cyclical lows. Private syndicates often rely on relationship networks and bespoke agreements that are difficult to replicate at scale. Public markets are available to only a subset of operators and are not practical for every vessel or ownership profile.

On the participant side

For many participants, the barrier is not only ticket size. It is information asymmetry and the absence of repeatable protections. In shipping, what matters is not just a quarterly “asset price,” but a live operating profile: charter terms, counterparty concentration, technical condition, off-hire risk, drydock timing, insurance coverage, and compliance status.

When structures are relationship-based, minority participants can have limited contractual recourse if decisions drift from the original parameters, for example, management changes, leverage increases, shifts in charter risk, or sale timing driven by sponsor incentives rather than agreed governance. In practice, participation scales only when governance is enforceable on paper and disclosure is disciplined enough that participants can monitor risk, not merely “own a fraction.”

One practical observation: in shipping, “liquidity” conversations often become “governance and disclosure” conversations within minutes. That is where credibility is won or lost.

Why ships are a distinct RWA category

Many generic RWA frameworks assume a relatively stable asset with local enforceability and predictable disclosure. Ships break those assumptions in three ways.

1) A mobile operating asset across jurisdictions

A ship can be flagged in one jurisdiction, owned through entities in another, insured and financed through others, and operated globally. That cross-border character forces institutional structures to answer basic questions clearly and consistently.

Where is legal title held? Which courts or arbitration forums govern disputes? What happens to participation rights if the sponsor fails? How are liens, mortgages, and priority claims addressed? If these questions are ambiguous, scale becomes fragile.

2) Operational performance drives outcomes

Real estate can often be underwritten primarily through location, lease profile, and local law. A vessel must be underwritten through an operating system: chartering strategy, technical management discipline, maintenance standards, crew and safety performance, and compliance readiness.

That makes disclosure requirements materially different. A token can represent a right, but the right is only meaningful if participants receive validated, decision-useful information on the operating profile, on a cadence that matches the risk.

3) Cyclicality tests governance

Shipping is cyclical. Governance that looks workable in a strong market can fail in a downturn, particularly when leverage decisions, refinancing, or asset sales become contested. Institutional participation depends on whether governance holds under stress: how conflicts are managed, what approvals are required, and whether minority protections remain enforceable when incentives diverge.

What makes maritime tokenisation viable at scale

If maritime tokenisation is to become market infrastructure, five structural elements are baseline.

1) Ring-fencing at the vessel level

Each vessel should sit in a dedicated ship-level SPV that isolates the asset legally and financially. The SPV should hold title, maintain separate accounts, and prevent spillover across assets or sponsors.

In institutional practice, ring-fencing is not a slogan. It means bankruptcy-remote design, documented ownership chains, and a structure that can survive sponsor distress while preserving participation rights.

2) Governance and reserved matters

Tokenised participation is only credible when decision rights are explicit. Governance needs to define day-to-day authority, approval thresholds, and the “reserved matters” that require higher thresholds to protect minorities.

Reserved matters typically include asset sale, refinancing or leverage changes, manager replacement, flag changes, and any action that changes the risk profile beyond disclosed parameters. The point is not to crowd-vote operations. It is to prevent unilateral changes that materially alter risk without enforceable recourse.

3) Valuation and disclosure discipline

Ships require independent valuation and disciplined disclosures. Valuation alone is insufficient. Participants need operating visibility.

An institutional-grade disclosure approach typically covers charter profile (duration, counterparties, termination rights), earnings and cost drivers (including off-hire), technical condition and survey status, drydock plan, compliance and insurance status, and any related-party arrangements and fees.

Cadence matters. Too infrequent, and risk becomes invisible. Too frequent, and reporting becomes noise. The right cadence is the one that supports monitoring and governance, not marketing.

4) Regulated distribution and onboarding

Broader participation requires supervised distribution. Access without conduct standards invites mis-selling and weakens category credibility.

In practice, this requires robust KYC/AML, appropriateness or suitability checks where required, risk disclosures aligned to the instrument’s legal classification, and governance documentation that is readable and enforceable. Jurisdictions will differ in perimeter and instrument treatment, but the direction is consistent: participation at scale requires regulated pathways.

5) Settlement integrity and traceability

Distributed ledger technology can strengthen recordkeeping and transfer controls, but only inside a credible legal wrapper.

DLT can support a single auditable ownership record, controlled transferability rules, reconciliation across stakeholders, and reliable transaction histories. What it does not do is remove charter risk, operational risk, or cyclicality. It is infrastructure for integrity and traceability, not economic transformation.

Five questions to ask before trusting any maritime RWA offering:

• Is each vessel held in a separate, bankruptcy-remote SPV with clear title and accounts?
• What reserved matters require participant approval, and at what thresholds?
• Who performs independent valuations and operational verification, and how often?
• Which regulated entity is responsible for distribution, onboarding, and conduct standards?
• What enforcement pathways protect minority participants if actions deviate from disclosed terms?

Where DLT adds value

The most useful contribution of DLT in complex markets is often unglamorous: clean records, controlled transfers, and auditability.

The BIS has described tokenisation as a continuum that can upgrade market processes (particularly recordkeeping and settlement) when paired with sound governance and legal clarity.

In maritime structures, DLT adds value when it reduces reconciliation disputes, creates an auditable ownership trail, enforces transfer rules aligned to regulatory and governance constraints, and supports clearer reporting and monitoring.

DLT is oversold when it is positioned as “instant liquidity” or as a substitute for market-making, price discovery, and risk underwriting. Secondary liquidity cannot be coded into existence. It emerges only when there is sufficient transparency, credible governance, and a participant base that can price risk. If tokenisation is framed as a shortcut around those fundamentals, it will attract the wrong expectations, and the category will pay the reputational cost.

Evidence that the category is moving from theory to implementation

Maritime tokenisation has reached the stage where structures are being evaluated in public policy and tested in live implementations.

In January 2026, the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) published Discussion Paper #318, “Tokenisation of Maritime Assets: Solutions for Fractional Ship Owning,” by Sujeet Samaddar and Vanshika Goyal, outlining a procedural framework along with governance and compliance considerations.

On the implementation side, EVIDENT’s November 2024 white paper on tokenising the FUJI LNG carrier (with GreenSeas) provides a case study of how legal structuring and operational realities shape feasibility.

These examples do show that the conversation is no longer hypothetical. Governance design and institutional standards are now the differentiators.

The Leaders in Tokenized Maritime Assets

Shipfinex is developing regulated market infrastructure for structured participation in maritime assets, designed around vessel-level ring-fencing, documented governance, and disclosure discipline. Shipfinex has received In-Principle Approval from Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) for Broker-Dealer activities, with final authorisation subject to completion of regulatory requirements. The firm states its approach emphasises supervised onboarding and conduct controls, alongside structures intended to align operational management with enforceable participant protections.

Conclusion

The core question in maritime tokenisation is not whether a ship can be represented digitally. That is the easy part.

The real question is which models can meet institutional standards at scale: ring-fenced vessel structures, enforceable governance and reserved matters, independent valuation and operational disclosure, regulated distribution, and settlement integrity that supports auditability and controlled transfer.

Markets tend to converge on standards after periods of experimentation. Maritime tokenisation will likely be no different. The category’s credibility will be shaped by whether participants can see risk clearly, enforce rights predictably, and rely on governance when cycles turn.

Questions for readers: Which governance frameworks provide strong minority protections while preserving operational flexibility? What valuation and disclosure cadence is genuinely useful for decisions without becoming a reporting theatre? Where should regulators draw the line between innovation in market infrastructure and safeguards against mis-selling?