On 5 June 2025, CurioInvest posted: The Future of Finance Is Being Built on Bitcoin — and Distributed via Telegram to Millions. The post argued that interoperability, not any single chain, is the next frontier in RWA.
The argument
Most RWA platforms are single-chain. They pick a chain (Polygon, Ethereum, Avalanche, etc.) and stay there. The argument is: institutional DeFi is on EVM, so the institutional RWA should be on EVM. The Jamton post from CurioInvest argues against this single-chain thesis. The argument is: the institutional asset stays on EVM, the retail distribution layer is on TON, the bridge is Jamton, and the result is a single asset with two audiences.
Why Bitcoin matters for the picture
CurioInvest's longer-term roadmap adds Bitcoin to the picture, via RGB (a Bitcoin Layer 2 for asset issuance). The argument: Bitcoin is the most secure base layer in the world. Tokenising on Bitcoin — with RGB — gives a tokenized asset the same security guarantees as Bitcoin itself. The throughput is low (RGB is 100-1000x slower than Polygon), but the security is unmatched. For a high-value, low-volume token (think real estate shares, equity in a private company), the trade-off favours security.
The three-chain model
- EVM (Polygon / Ethereum): institutional DeFi, deep liquidity, smart-contract composability
- TON (via Jamton): 1B+ Telegram users, mobile-first UX, growing DEX ecosystem
- Bitcoin (via RGB): highest security, slowest throughput, best for high-value, low-volume tokens
A receivable-issuer in 2026 picks one or more of these. Most pick two: EVM for institutional liquidity, TON for retail. A few (real estate, equity) might add Bitcoin for the security story.
What this looks like for a CFO
A mid-market CFO with CHF 50M in receivables: the natural split is 80% on EVM (institutional) and 20% on TON (retail, after the DLT-Act amendment makes this compliant). The 20% is what the retail investor can subscribe to via Telegram; the 80% is what the institutional investor takes via the platform's portal.
The 80/20 isn't fixed. A consumer brand might do 50/50. A B2B service firm might do 95/5. The point is the optionality, not the default.
What CurioExtract does about it
The dashboard surfaces the chain mix. An issuer can issue on EVM, on TON, or both. The receivables data (extraction, scoring) is the same; the on-chain settlement is just where the CMTAT lives. In a CFOs dashboard, the receivables list shows which chain each tokenized receivable is on, who's holding it, and what its current transfer-restriction state is.
That's the practical interoperability. It doesn't matter which chain wins in 2026. What matters is that the receivables can be priced, transferred, and settled on whatever chain the issuer and investor prefer. The 1 January 2026 DLT-Act amendment makes that legal; CurioExtract makes that operational.