Global Digital Asset Market Overview: Trends and Growth Prospects in Vietnam (Part 1)

2026 marks a structural turning point for the crypto asset market, both globally and in Vietnam. On a global scale, the market has moved beyond a purely speculative phase into a phase of institutionalization, marked by growing participation from major investment funds, commercial banks and central banks.

In Vietnam, after nearly a decade of oscillating between prohibition and research, the Law on Digital Technology Industry (Law No. 71/2025/QH15) officially took effect on January 1, 2026, formally recognizing crypto assets as digital assets for the first time. This marks a turning point that opens the way to bringing an estimated USD 18 billion in crypto assets currently held “off the books” by Vietnamese holders into a regulated and transparent system.

Global Crypto Asset Market Overview in 2026

From a Speculative Phase to a Wave of Institutionalization

While the crypto asset market from 2017 to 2022 was characterized by intense waves of speculation and a number of shocking collapses, the period from 2023 to 2026 has traced an entirely different trajectory, one in which institutionalization has become increasingly pronounced.

This is reflected in the rise of BlackRock and Fidelity as the largest issuers and managers of crypto asset products in the market, in leading commercial banks actively building their own proprietary blockchain infrastructure rather than remaining on the sidelines, and, notably, in the fact that 130 countries and territories, accounting for 98% of global GDP, are now actively researching or piloting central bank digital currencies.

In essence, crypto assets are digital assets that are created, stored and transferred using distributed ledger technology, and they can be understood through four main categories, each governed by a distinctly different operating logic.

The traditional crypto category, which includes Bitcoin, Ethereum, various altcoins and stablecoins, functions as a medium of exchange, a store of value or onchain payment infrastructure. NFTs represent unique ownership of a specific digital or physical asset. RWAs tokenize real world assets such as real estate, bonds, carbon credits, commodities or investment funds. Utility and governance tokens, meanwhile, grant holders access to a platform or the ability to participate in voting within decentralized autonomous organizations.

This differentiation reflects an important reality, that the 2026 market is no longer the homogeneous mass of speculative virtual currency commonly imagined a decade ago, but has instead split into segments with very different operating logics, risk levels and participant profiles.

Market Size in 2026: The Numbers Shaping the Landscape

Looking at current market size, total market capitalization fluctuates between USD 2.2 trillion and USD 3.1 trillion depending on the point in time. This range shows that the market remains fairly volatile, while also reflecting the fact that overall valuation levels have been sustained at a considerably higher plateau than in previous cycles.

At the same time, the number of crypto asset holders worldwide has risen to approximately 560 million, equivalent to 9.9% of the global internet population. Compared with 420 million holders in 2023, adoption is clearly continuing, with no sign of slowing.

Source: Cryptocurrency Market Global Report 2026

Within the broader market picture, Bitcoin continues to hold its dominance at around 55% of total market capitalization, acting as the market’s leading asset and a barometer of risk appetite across the entire ecosystem. With its supply capped at 21 million units, Bitcoin is increasingly viewed as a form of digital gold and is appearing more frequently in the portfolios of major institutions.

On the other side, stablecoins have reached a scale of around USD 300 billion, accounting for roughly 13% to 14% of total market capitalization. This asset class functions as a payment infrastructure layer, helping to sustain liquidity and connect capital flows between the crypto market and the traditional financial system.

Four Core Asset Pillars: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana and Stablecoins

Bitcoin continues to affirm its role as a store of value and a gauge of the market’s risk appetite. This position is reinforced by spot ETFs in the United States, which hold total net assets of approximately USD 123.5 billion. Within this figure, BlackRock’s IBIT accounts for about USD 70.6 billion and Fidelity’s FBTC for about USD 17.7 billion, together equivalent to roughly 203,000 BTC held in custody.

Ethereum, launched in 2015, remains the core infrastructure platform for DeFi, NFTs and the majority of real world asset tokenization products. A prime example is BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, which is deployed directly on this network. Following “The Merge” in September 2022, when Ethereum transitioned to a Proof of Stake mechanism, its energy consumption fell by more than 99%. At the same time, Layer 2 solutions such as Arbitrum, Optimism and Base continue to expand processing capacity and reduce transaction costs, allowing Ethereum to sustain its dual role as both infrastructure and a store of value alongside Bitcoin.

Solana has emerged as a notable counterweight to Ethereum thanks to its high processing speed and low transaction costs. Since the start of 2026, the network has processed more than 2 billion transactions per month, with nearly 3 million active wallets daily. Total value locked in DeFi on Solana reached about USD 5.5 billion by mid 2026. In addition, spot Solana ETFs in the United States have recorded cumulative net inflows of more than USD 1.1 billion. The Alpenglow upgrade rolled out during the year is also aimed at shortening transaction finality time to approximately 150 milliseconds.

Stablecoins, with a market capitalization of around USD 300 billion, continue to reinforce their role as the market’s core payment infrastructure. The emergence of dedicated regulatory frameworks such as the GENIUS Act in the United States shows that lawmakers now regard stablecoins as a systemically important infrastructure layer that requires tighter regulation than purely speculative assets.

RWA: The Starting Point of 2026’s Biggest Trend

RWA, or Real World Assets, refers to bringing the ownership rights or economic benefits of real world assets onto the blockchain so they can be recorded and traded. From 2025 to 2026, this has been the fastest growing segment of the market, and it clearly reflects a broader shift away from speculation and toward assets with real, tangible value. Following the sharp volatility of 2021 and 2022, institutional capital began to prioritize assets with clearer cash flows and clearer valuations. This shift stems from three main factors, namely a higher demand for transparency, the ability to improve liquidity for assets that were previously illiquid, and cost reductions achieved by cutting out intermediaries.

As of June 2026, the value of RWAs circulating directly onchain, excluding stablecoins, reached approximately USD 26.7 billion, up about 300% year on year. Measured more broadly to include all assets represented onchain, the figure could reach roughly USD 345 billion. Long term forecasts point to very large potential, though there is no consensus among them. McKinsey offers a conservative scenario of around USD 2 trillion by 2030, while BCG and ADDX forecast about USD 16 trillion. Standard Chartered has put forward an even more optimistic scenario of up to USD 30 trillion by 2034. This wide dispersion reflects uncertainty over how quickly traditional financial institutions will get involved, as well as the pace at which regulatory frameworks will be finalized.

Within the RWA space, three segments stand out. The first is tokenized real estate, which allows ownership of high value assets to be divided into smaller units, making them more accessible to investors and improving liquidity. The second is carbon credits, where blockchain helps address problems of transparency and duplicate data while also supporting clearer tracking of provenance. The third is tokenized bonds and funds, which is also the fastest growing segment. Its size has grown from under USD 1 billion in early 2024 to more than USD 10 billion in early 2026

A prime example is BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, valued at roughly USD 2.85 billion, which can now be traded or used as collateral within DeFi protocols such as Uniswap. This illustrates the increasingly clear convergence between traditional finance and decentralized finance. Even so, RWAs also carry new risks. Alongside benefits such as continuous trading, wider accessibility and lower costs, legal questions remain around ownership of the underlying offchain assets, as well as valuation risk and the reliability of input data.

From a broader perspective, the development of RWAs can be seen as an important test for the entire blockchain industry. The question at hand is whether this technology genuinely creates new value for traditional assets or is simply an additional technological layer. The fact that major institutions such as BlackRock have chosen RWA as a strategic direction suggests that confidence is leaning toward the positive scenario. RWA is not only a story about technology but also a shift in how capital markets operate, moving toward a system that is more efficient, faster and more accessible to a wider range of investors.

Trading Infrastructure: The Divide Between CEX and DEX

The crypto market today operates primarily through two main categories of platforms, CEX and DEX. Leading CEXs include Binance, Coinbase, OKX and Bybit, while popular DEXs include Uniswap, PancakeSwap and Jupiter. The RWA segment has its own separate ecosystem, built around platforms such as Ondo Finance, Securitize, Centrifuge and RealT, where assets are issued by licensed institutions and secondary trading takes place on regulated compliant platforms or through OTC channels, accompanied by strict KYC and AML controls.

Comparison of CEX and DEX Exchanges

CEXs operate on a custodial model, holding users’ assets and matching orders through a centralized order book. As a result, these platforms deliver high liquidity, a user friendly experience and clear compliance procedures. By 2026, CEXs still account for about 87.4% of global spot trading revenue and remain the market’s dominant channel.

DEXs, by contrast, allow users to trade directly through smart contracts, with no intermediary holding custody of their assets. Trading takes place through automated market maker mechanisms and personal wallets. DEX market share has grown considerably, from around 6.9% in early 2024 to about 13.6% in early 2026, even surpassing 20% at certain points in 2025. This trend reflects growing demand for asset self custody and the ability to trade without depending on an intermediary.

In terms of characteristics, each model carries its own advantages and disadvantages. CEXs stand out for high liquidity and stability, but they also carry counterparty risk and the danger of attacks on centralized systems. DEXs, meanwhile, eliminate custodial risk, but they depend on the liquidity depth of individual pools and can be exposed to risks arising from smart contract bugs. One important distinction lies in compliance. CEXs require full KYC and AML procedures, whereas DEXs typically do not apply these directly at the protocol level. This is also a point drawing considerable attention from regulators amid tightening controls on money laundering.

Looking at specific criteria, CEXs hold assets on behalf of users, whereas DEXs let users manage their own wallets. CEXs sustain high liquidity through concentrated trading volume, while DEXs depend on the liquidity of individual pools. On the regulatory front, CEXs fully comply with KYC and AML requirements, while DEXs are more flexible but, for that same reason, face greater policy debate.

The parallel existence of these two models shows that the market is gradually forming a clearly stratified structure. CEXs suit the large liquidity needs and compliance requirements of institutions as well as retail investors. DEXs, on the other hand, serve users who prioritize control over their own assets and decentralized forms of trading. This is likely to be the market’s long term development direction, and it is also an important factor that policymakers, including those in Vietnam, will need to weigh when building regulatory frameworks in the period ahead.

Manipulation Risk and Lessons from Major Shocks

The market remains at an early stage of development, while manipulative practices are becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to detect. Common tactics include placing fake orders to create price pressure, wash trading to distort volume figures, and pump and dump strategies combined with the exploitation of information advantages. Notably, wash trading can account for as much as approximately 70% of volume on some smaller exchanges.

These risks are not merely theoretical. They have produced significant real world consequences. Losses from cyberattacks rose sharply in 2020, reaching approximately USD 513 million, while major events such as the collapse of FTX in 2022 and regulatory lawsuits against large industry players show that risk levels have become increasingly evident and increasingly systemic

Source: CoinMarketCap

Two major shocks in 2022 are regarded as important turning points that directly drove a global wave of tighter regulation. The Terra and Luna event in May 2022 began when the UST stablecoin lost its peg to the US dollar, triggering the collapse of the entire related ecosystem. Direct losses are estimated at USD 40 billion to USD 50 billion, and the fallout spread widely, causing total market capitalization to fall by more than USD 400 billion.

Just a few months later, in November 2022, FTX, then one of the largest exchanges in the world, collapsed after misusing customer assets. This event not only caused billions of dollars in losses but also triggered a chain reaction, leading to the collapse of a series of other institutions including Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital and BlockFi. It illustrated the tight interconnection and contagion risk among institutions within the digital finance ecosystem.

In response to these upheavals, regulators have reacted more forcefully. In the United States specifically, agencies such as the SEC and the CFTC have continued to file lawsuits against major institutions over operational violations. South Korea issued a set of investor protection standards in 2024, while the European Union accelerated the completion of its MiCA regulatory framework. These moves reflect a broader trend toward stronger oversight aimed at reducing systemic risk and protecting investors in a market that remains highly volatile.

Central Banks and the Wave of National Digital Currencies

According to the Atlantic Council (2023), about 130 countries and territories, accounting for approximately 98% of global GDP, are researching CBDCs, or central bank digital currencies, as a strategic response to the growth of crypto and private stablecoins. At the pilot level, the mBridge project (a collaboration between the BIS and the central banks of Hong Kong, Thailand, the UAE and China) processed more than 160 transactions worth over USD 22 million in just six weeks in 2022, and reached MVP status by mid 2024, even though the BIS stepped back from its coordinating role later that year.

Several major economies are also accelerating their rollout. China’s e-CNY has been piloted since 2020, expanded further from mid 2023, and has reached a cumulative transaction value of about 1.8 trillion yuan, while cross border testing began in 2024. In Europe, the Digital Euro went through an investigation phase from January 2021 to October 2023, entered a preparation phase from October 2023, and is expected to launch from 2026 onward, with a design intended to complement cash and prioritize privacy.

In Vietnam, CBDC development remains at an early stage. The government tasked the State Bank of Vietnam with research starting in 2021, continuing through 2023, and later assigned Viettel and MobiFone to take part in pilot programs. However, as of late 2025 there is still no project in actual deployment, with work largely still confined to the feasibility study stage. This points to a considerable gap between Vietnam and major economies, even though progress in building a regulatory framework for crypto assets has been moving faster.

Institutional Capital Flows: Who Is Really Holding Bitcoin?

Starting from close to zero in early 2024, the total assets held by spot crypto ETFs in the United States surpassed USD 130 billion by mid 2026, while the amount of Bitcoin held by publicly listed companies roughly tripled. Major names such as BlackRock and Fidelity have not only led the spot ETF space but have also expanded into tokenized assets, pointing to a trend of deep integration between traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure. Institutional capital now accesses the market through a variety of structures, including ETFs, trusts, hedge funds and venture capital, each serving a different strategy and risk appetite.

Notably, the model of the “corporate Bitcoin treasury” is emerging clearly. Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, leads the pack with approximately 843,775 BTC, worth about USD 63.5 billion, equivalent to nearly three quarters of all Bitcoin held by publicly listed companies combined. Other companies also participate, though at a smaller scale, such as Tesla with about 11,509 BTC and Block with about 28,355 BTC. This trend suggests that Bitcoin is increasingly being viewed as a strategic reserve asset on the balance sheet, rather than merely a speculative instrument.

At the same time, commercial banks are also accelerating their participation. JPMorgan now processes more than USD 1 billion in transactions per day on its internal blockchain platform, while a consortium of major US banks is exploring the issuance of a joint stablecoin. This reflects a shift by the traditional financial system, moving from a posture of “watching from the sidelines” to actively shaping the market.

Overall, the wave of “institutionalization” is expanding rapidly but comes with a high degree of concentration. The fact that a small number of institutions hold the bulk of corporate Bitcoin creates meaningful risk, since Bitcoin’s price volatility can be amplified directly onto these companies’ own balance sheets and share prices. The central question, then, is not only the scale of capital inflows, but the long term sustainability of this asset allocation model.

Global Regulatory Frameworks: The Race to Set New Standards

In the European Union, the full application of the MiCA regulatory framework from July 1, 2026 has significantly reshaped the crypto asset market landscape. Exchanges such as Bitvavo, Kraken and Coinbase have expanded their EUR trading market share, while between 110 and 130 institutions have already been licensed to operate as Crypto Asset Service Providers, or CASPs. At the same time, a growing preference for stablecoins that meet strict regulatory standards has become more apparent, helping USDC gain market share over USDT within the EU.

In the United States, the GENIUS Act is establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins, with federal agencies continuing to refine implementation guidance, while the CLARITY Act aims to clarify the criteria for classifying digital assets as securities or commodities. Overall, major markets are all strengthening compliance standards in order to improve transparency and protect investors.

Regulatory frameworks for crypto asset investment funds also differ across regions. In the United States, the SEC permits spot ETFs to operate under a grantor trust structure, with assets held in custody by specialized entities such as Coinbase Custody, although rules on staking and taxation are still being finalized. In the EU, crypto asset service providers must meet capital requirements under MiCA, while investment funds remain simultaneously subject to UCITS and AIFMD. Singapore applies a Capital Markets Services licensing regime, or CMS, together with strict requirements on asset custody and risk disclosure.

Vietnam, meanwhile, does not yet have a dedicated regulatory framework for crypto asset investment funds. Fund management companies can currently only participate indirectly by contributing capital to pilot exchanges under Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP, indicating that there is still considerable room for policy development in the period ahead.

Mapping Capital Flows: How Institutional Money Moves Through the Crypto Market

Beyond growth in size and capital flows, the structure of the global crypto asset market is also being reshaped by four main groups of participants, namely central banks, investment funds and ETF issuers, commercial banks and regulators. Central banks are stepping up research and rollout of CBDCs, investment institutions such as BlackRock and Fidelity are expanding capital inflows through spot ETFs and digital asset funds, while commercial banks are gradually entering custody services, stablecoin issuance and the development of onchain payment infrastructure. Alongside this, regulators in major markets continue refining their legal frameworks to raise standards of transparency, risk governance and investor protection.

Institutional Capital Flows into Bitcoin (BTC) – Source: Bitcoin Rally

The simultaneous involvement of traditional financial institutions and regulators shows that the crypto asset market no longer operates as a standalone ecosystem but is gradually becoming part of the global financial system. The boundary between traditional finance and digital finance is steadily narrowing, laying the groundwork for many countries, particularly emerging economies such as Vietnam, to build their own regulatory frameworks as international standards continue to take shape.

Overall, the picture of the global crypto asset market in 2026 reflects a market entering a phase of maturity, with capitalization sustained in the trillions of US dollars, tokenized real world assets (RWA) emerging as a new growth driver, and major financial institutions playing an increasingly important role. Although legal approaches still differ from country to country, the general trend is moving toward principles of transparency, investor protection and systemic risk control. This also forms an important foundation for Vietnam to build its own regulatory framework for the crypto asset market, a topic that will be examined in the next part.