# RWA Daily Update - 2026-09-26 ## Lesson title An open blockchain can still have a transaction queue Access date: September 26, 2026 (PDT), checked with the local system clock. Educational review of established research, not a new market announcement. ## Official-hosted sources checked 1. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Working Paper 44, *Novel risks, mitigants and uncertainties with permissionless distributed ledger technologies*, August 28, 2024. - Original landing URL checked: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/wp44.htm - Resolved landing URL: https://www.bis.org/publications/novel-risks-mitigants-and-uncertainties-permissionless-distributed-ledger-technologies - Verified full-text PDF: https://www.bis.org/publications/novel-risks-mitigants-and-uncertainties-permissionless-distributed-ledger-technologies.pdf - Focus: section 2.4.1, printed page 6; executive summary, printed page 1; definition of permissionless networks, printed page 2. - Source classification: research working paper hosted by BIS, not a binding rule or an official Committee policy statement. The document explicitly states that the authors' views need not represent the Basel Committee, its members or BIS. ## Extracted facts and exact passages - Section 2.4.1, page 6: "Some of the most popular permissionless blockchains have low transaction throughput compared to traditional payment clearing and settlement systems." - Same paragraph: stress and herding behaviour can cause congestion. It notes that many permissionless chains have dynamic pricing, so the cost of transacting may rise during stress and transactions may not be conducted promptly. - Direct conclusion: "This can impose a liquidity risk on tokenised assets that use permissionless blockchains." - Executive summary, page 1: at publication, the risk mitigants discussed were in various stages of development and had not been tested under stress. This is a 2024 assessment, not a verified description of all safeguards in September 2026. - Introduction, page 2: permissionless refers here to unrestricted participation in the consensus process for validating transactions and data. It does not guarantee unrestricted access to a particular regulated token. ## Facts versus educational interpretation Verified source claim: network congestion and dynamic transaction pricing can create liquidity risk for tokenised assets on permissionless networks. Editorial explanation: a network can be operating while a time-sensitive transfer remains queued; asset backing and timely transfer execution are different questions. Illustrative scenario only: an institution needs to move a tokenized bond before a collateral deadline. Congestion could interfere even if the bond itself has not defaulted. This is not a documented incident involving a named issuer. Practical due-diligence questions: who pays fees, what happens at a fee cap, what constitutes completed transfer, and whether a tested contingency process exists. These are suggested questions, not an assertion that a specific product has or lacks these controls. ## Published lesson A blockchain can operate around the clock without guaranteeing that your transfer finishes when you need it. For tokenized real-world assets, network capacity is therefore part of liquidity risk, not merely an engineering detail. An August 2024 Basel Committee working paper explains that some popular permissionless blockchains process relatively few transactions compared with traditional payment systems. During market stress, crowded transaction queues can worsen. Where transaction prices adjust dynamically, fees can rise at the same time that users urgently need to move assets. Illustrative example, not a reported incident: an institution must deliver a tokenized bond before a collateral deadline. The bond may remain properly backed, yet a congested network could delay its transfer. Owning a valuable claim and being able to deliver it promptly are different things. The practical checks are operational: who pays network fees, what happens if fees exceed an approved limit, how completion is monitored, and what contingency process applies if the deadline cannot be met. A platform's normal-day speed is not evidence of its performance under stress. This is a design-specific risk, not a claim that every blockchain is slow or unsafe. The source is research, not a binding regulatory rule, and its authors' views need not represent the Basel Committee or BIS. Watch question: If this network becomes congested, who pays for timely execution, and what happens if my transfer misses its deadline? ## Novelty and no-hype summary Prior daily lesson titles were reviewed; a search for congestion, gas fees, transaction fees and dynamic pricing found no matching prior source-note discussion. This lesson focuses on queueing, variable fees and time-critical delivery, rather than the September 21 prefunding/netting lesson, September 22 shared-service dependency lesson or September 24 blockchain-fork lesson. A token's backing does not guarantee timely transfer. Ask for stress-tested operating arrangements rather than treating 24/7 availability as a delivery guarantee. No investment advice, price forecast, performance estimate, buy/sell recommendation or promised yield is included. ## Retrieval notes Web search was available and used for discovery. Opening the legacy wp44.pdf URL with the extraction service returned landing-page text rather than the PDF body. Direct HTTP retrieval of the legacy wp44.htm landing page revealed the current full-PDF link; the full PDF text was then extracted successfully. No inaccessible content is presented as verified. Only the relevant new official-hosted source is added to the page's external source trail; historical local notes remain linked.