Both platforms connect real-world assets with on-chain capital, but they take different approaches to structuring, risk, and recovery. Centrifuge pools assets into tokenized tranches. On.Chained isolates risk per loan and prioritises real-world enforcement.
| On.Chained | Centrifuge | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary model | Direct, contract-by-contract RWA lending | Tokenized asset pools with Tin/Drop tranches |
| Risk structure | Risk isolated per loan | Risk pooled and tranched across multiple assets |
| Collateral focus | Audited bullion, commodities, art, inventory | Invoices, real estate, revenue-based assets |
| Default handling | Enforcement-first work-out against collateral | Off-chain enforcement by asset originator / SPV |
| Liquidity model | Matched lending with defined tenor | Pool tokens trade on secondary markets |
| Best fit for | Borrowers and lenders who want isolated, audited collateral | Originators who want to securitize a portfolio |
On.Chained is built for asset owners and capital providers who want each loan tied to a specific, enforceable piece of collateral. If you hold vaulted bullion, warehouse commodities, or authenticated art and want to borrow against them without selling, the platform is designed around your workflow.
Centrifuge is strongest for originators with a portfolio of receivables or income-producing assets who want to pool and tokenize cash flows. The tranche structure lets different investors take different risk profiles across the same pool.
On.Chained's core difference is that recovery planning starts before the loan is originated. We underwrite based on what can be claimed and enforced in the real world — custody arrangements, security interests, and legal remedies — rather than assuming a market exit. This matters most for collateral that cannot be sold instantly without loss.
Check asset eligibility on On.Chained