Real-world asset tokenization has emerged as one of crypto's most promising use cases, with the sector surpassing $23 billion in mid-2025. Two projects taking fundamentally different approaches to this opportunity are MANTRA and Chainlink, each positioning itself as essential infrastructure for bringing traditional assets on-chain.

MANTRA builds a dedicated Layer-1 blockchain specifically for RWA tokenization with built-in compliance features. Chainlink provides the middleware layer, oracle services, and cross-chain infrastructure that over 80% of RWA platforms rely on regardless of which blockchain they use. Understanding how these approaches differ helps traders evaluate exposure to the RWA narrative.

Core Infrastructure Philosophy

The fundamental distinction between these projects lies in their architectural approach to solving RWA challenges.

MANTRA: Vertical Integration

MANTRA operates as a purpose-built Cosmos SDK blockchain designed from the ground up for tokenized assets. The platform integrates compliance at the protocol level through built-in KYC/AML modules, Decentralized Identity (DID) verification via Soulbound NFTs, and permissioned access controls that satisfy regulatory requirements.

This vertical approach means projects building on MANTRA Chain get compliance infrastructure out of the box. The tradeoff is ecosystem lock-in: assets tokenized on MANTRA primarily live within its ecosystem, though IBC connectivity allows some cross-chain movement within Cosmos.

Chainlink: Horizontal Middleware

Chainlink takes the opposite approach, serving as chain-agnostic infrastructure that any blockchain can integrate. Rather than building its own chain for RWA, Chainlink provides the critical services that make tokenized assets functional anywhere: price feeds, proof of reserves, cross-chain transfers via CCIP, and compliance tools through the Automated Compliance Engine.

This horizontal positioning explains why Chainlink integrations span over 2,600 projects across 57+ blockchains. The middleware model means Chainlink benefits regardless of which chains win the RWA race.

Institutional Adoption and Partnerships

The partnership profiles of these projects reveal different go-to-market strategies.

Chainlink's institutional traction stands out. The 2025 corporate actions initiative with Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, and 21 other financial institutions aims to solve a $58 billion annual processing cost problem. UBS has already completed production workflows using Chainlink's Digital Transfer Agent standard.

MANTRA's headline partnership with DAMAC Group for $1 billion in UAE real estate tokenization demonstrates regional strength but hasn't yet translated to comparable global institutional adoption.

Technical Capabilities Compared

Both platforms offer distinct technical advantages depending on use case requirements.

Cross-Chain Functionality

Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) has become the de facto standard for moving tokenized assets between blockchains. The protocol processed over $130 million in single-day transfer volumes and now connects 57+ blockchains, enabling tokenized assets to maintain consistent behavior regardless of destination chain.

MANTRA relies on Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) for cross-chain transfers, limiting interoperability primarily to Cosmos ecosystem chains. The recent Hyperlane integration extends reach to 150+ blockchains for stablecoin transfers, but native RWA interoperability remains more constrained than Chainlink's offering.

Data and Oracle Services

Chainlink's oracle infrastructure provides the off-chain data that makes tokenized assets functional. This includes real-time pricing feeds, proof of reserves verification for backing transparency, and connections to traditional data providers like FTSE Russell, Intercontinental Exchange, and S&P.

MANTRA doesn't operate oracle services. Projects building on MANTRA Chain would need to integrate Chainlink or alternative oracle providers for price data and collateral verification, creating potential technical synergy rather than pure competition.

Compliance Infrastructure

Both projects prioritize regulatory compliance, though implementation differs significantly.

MANTRA embeds compliance at the chain level through protocol-native identity verification, permissioned token standards, and built-in reporting capabilities. The VARA license validates this approach for UAE operations.

Chainlink's Automated Compliance Engine (ACE) provides modular compliance tools that can integrate with any blockchain. This includes identity verification, risk screening, and asset-specific restrictions that work across multiple chains rather than being locked to one platform.

Token Economics and Market Position

The market profiles of OM and LINK reflect their different stages and risk profiles.

Current Market Data (December 2025):

• LINK: ~$12 price, ~$9B market cap, 700M circulating supply, established since 2017
• OM: ~$0.07 price, ~$80M market cap, 1.14B circulating supply, recovering from April 2025 crash

The 99% price decline in OM since its February 2025 all-time high of $8.99 dominates any discussion of MANTRA's investment case. The April crash that wiped out $5+ billion in market cap created lasting trust issues that the $25 million buyback program is attempting to address. For detailed analysis on recovery scenarios, see our OM price prediction breakdown.

Chainlink's LINK has traded in a more stable range, recently receiving additional institutional validation through the Grayscale LINK ETF launch in December 2025 with $37 million in Day 1 inflows. The token's utility is directly tied to oracle service usage, creating fundamental demand beyond speculation.

Token Utility Differences:

LINK pays for Chainlink network services, secures the network through staking, and accumulates in the Chainlink Reserve from enterprise revenue. The utility case strengthens as institutional adoption grows.

OM secures MANTRA Chain via proof-of-stake, pays gas fees, enables governance participation, and will serve as collateral for RWA applications. The token is also undergoing redenomination to $MANTRA with a 1:4 split.

Risk Assessment

Each project carries distinct risk factors that traders should evaluate.

MANTRA Risks:

• Concentrated supply and unresolved questions from April crash
• Regional focus limits global institutional appeal
• Ecosystem still developing compared to established chains
• Trust rebuild requires sustained execution

Chainlink Risks:

• Competition from alternative oracle providers (Pyth, API3, Band)
• Token value doesn't capture all protocol value
• Dependent on continued institutional blockchain adoption
• Premium valuation relative to current revenue

The risk profiles differ substantially. MANTRA represents higher volatility with turnaround potential if execution improves. Chainlink offers more established positioning but with less dramatic upside potential given its already-significant market cap.

Which Approach Wins the RWA Race?

The question of MANTRA versus Chainlink may be a false dichotomy. These projects solve different problems in the RWA stack and could ultimately be complementary rather than competitive.

Chainlink appears better positioned for the institutional adoption wave given its existing relationships with Swift, DTCC, and major banks. The middleware model also means Chainlink benefits regardless of which blockchains ultimately capture RWA market share.

MANTRA offers a more speculative bet on purpose-built RWA infrastructure, with potential upside if the platform can rebuild trust and capture meaningful tokenization volume through its UAE partnerships.

For traders seeking RWA exposure, LINK provides established infrastructure plays with institutional validation. OM offers higher-risk recovery speculation for those betting on MANTRA's ability to execute its roadmap despite past controversy.

Trading Considerations

Both tokens are available on LeveX for traders looking to express views on RWA infrastructure development.

OM spot trading provides direct exposure to MANTRA's recovery trajectory, while OM futures enable leveraged positioning for traders with higher conviction. Given OM's volatility profile, careful position sizing and risk management become especially important.

For those preferring established infrastructure exposure, LINK trading offers a lower-volatility way to gain RWA sector exposure through Chainlink's institutional partnerships.

Understanding the distinction between vertical RWA infrastructure (MANTRA) and horizontal middleware (Chainlink) helps clarify which thesis you're actually betting on. Both address real problems in tokenizing traditional assets, but their success depends on different adoption patterns and execution challenges.

Explore more cryptocurrency fundamentals through our Crypto in a Minute guides, or learn about spot versus futures trading to optimize your approach to these opportunities.