Interoperability-as-Infrastructure: Design-Space Tensions in Cross Chain Tokenized Credit

Abstract

Cross-chain tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) exhibits a class of design problems that differs structurally from both single-chain tokenization and from general-purpose cross-chain interoperability. Existing literature on bridge security treats cross-chain failures primarily as protocol-security problems amenable to cryptographic or auditing remedies, while literature on tokenized real-world assets treats them primarily as legal-authority problems amenable to regulatory or contractual remedies. This paper argues that a third category of problem—infrastructure-layer design-responsibility allocation—cuts across both framings and is inadequately theorized in either. Using the April 2026 KelpDAO bridge exploit as an animating case, the paper develops a three-layer taxonomy of cross-chain tokenization architecture (messaging, settlement, and asset-representation), identifies five design tensions that recur across these layers, presents a reference-architecture comparison of ten leading interoperability solutions evaluated against the design-tensions framework, and extends the analysis to tokenized credit—where the distinction between digital-twin and digital-native tokenization, the compliance architecture demanded by FATF Travel Rule obligations, and the non-transferability of perfected security interests across chains produce a design space that existing interoperability and tokenization literatures address only in parts. The paper’s contribution is cartographic: it maps a design space that current vocabulary obscures, and concludes with a research agenda for cross-chain RWA infrastructure and a discussion of how design responsibility should be allocated and disclosed.

Keywords