Tokenized doesn't mean unregulated
A recurring misconception around RWA tokenization is that putting a traditional financial instrument on a blockchain somehow moves it outside the reach of existing financial regulation. This isn't how regulators, in general, treat it. If the underlying asset is a security, a bond, or another regulated financial instrument, tokenizing it typically doesn't change its underlying classification, it's still generally treated as that same regulated instrument, just represented and transferred in a new technical format. A tokenized treasury bond is still a bond, subject to the same securities and financial regulations a non-tokenized version would face, and a token representing fractional ownership in a company or property that behaves like an investment contract is still likely to be treated as a security under the relevant framework.
This means the parties involved in issuing and operating an RWA tokenization platform generally still need to think about the same categories of compliance a traditional financial issuer would: securities registration or exemption requirements, know your customer and anti money laundering checks on participants, restrictions on who can buy or hold the asset, and disclosure obligations about the asset and the issuer. The blockchain layer changes how ownership is recorded and transferred, it does not exempt the underlying financial substance from the rules that already apply to that kind of substance.