> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.rwa-chain.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.rwa-chain.io/token-migration.md).

# Token migration

## The constraint

$RWAINC exists today on **Base**. The chain in this repo is an OP Stack L2 that settles to **Ethereum L1**. An OP Stack custom gas token must be an **ERC-20 on the L1 the chain settles to**, and it is **fixed at deployment — it cannot be changed afterwards**.

So the Base-native $RWAINC cannot directly become the gas token of an Ethereum-settled chain. Something has to bridge that gap first.

A second constraint worth stating plainly: custom gas token chains are a **non-standard OP Stack configuration**. They are not part of the standard rollup charter. Bridges, indexers, block explorers, fiat on-ramps and wallet integrations all assume ETH gas by default, and a meaningful fraction will need custom work or will simply not support the chain at launch.

## Options

### 1. ETH gas, $RWAINC as a protocol token

Launch with standard ETH gas. $RWAINC stays on Base and is used for fees inside the RWA protocol (marketplace fees, vault management fees), staking, and governance — but not for gas.

* Lowest risk, best tooling compatibility, standard-configuration chain.
* Ships fastest.
* No new supply, no migration, no bridge to design.
* $RWAINC captures less value than a true gas token would.

### 2. Canonical L1 $RWAINC, then custom gas token

Deploy a canonical $RWAINC on Ethereum L1, bridge the Base supply to it, and configure the L1 token as the chain's gas token at deployment.

* $RWAINC becomes genuinely load-bearing.
* Requires a bridge between the Base token and the L1 token, and a migration that does not create a second unbacked supply.
* Locks the chain into a non-standard configuration permanently.
* The migration itself is the highest-risk step in the whole programme.

### 3. Base-settled L3 with $RWAINC gas — RULED OUT

Settle to Base instead of Ethereum, allowing the existing Base $RWAINC to be the gas token directly.

* No token migration at all.
* Keeps the ecosystem in one place.
* L3 tooling is thinner; an extra trust hop; withdrawals to Ethereum go through two layers.

**This is no longer available.** The settlement decision is Ethereum L1 — see [architecture.md](/architecture.md). Option 3 required Base settlement, so it went away with that choice.

## Decision

**Option 1 at launch. Option 2 stays open as a later, deliberate migration** if $RWAINC-as-gas proves necessary.

Launch configuration:

|                  |                                                                               |
| ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Gas token        | **ETH** (standard OP Stack configuration)                                     |
| $RWAINC role     | Protocol token — marketplace fees, vault management fees, staking, governance |
| $RWAINC location | Stays on Base, unchanged                                                      |

The reasoning: the gas token choice is irreversible, and the RWA protocol is the part that actually differentiates this chain. Shipping compliant tokenization on a standard, well-supported configuration is worth more than gas-token value capture on day one — and Option 1 does not foreclose Option 2, whereas launching on Option 2 forecloses everything else.

## Non-negotiable

**Do not deploy a second $RWAINC supply on the new chain while the Base token is live.** Any token on the new chain must be either bridged-and-locked against the Base supply, or the result of a completed migration that retires the old one. Two independent supplies of the same ticker is a permanent, unfixable problem.

## Open questions to resolve before choosing

1. Is $RWAINC's current Base contract upgradeable or mint-controlled? That determines whether a lock-and-mint bridge is even possible.
2. What is the current holder distribution, and how much sits in CEX custody? Exchange-held supply cannot be migrated without exchange cooperation.
3. Is there a governance process that must approve a migration?
4. Which of the above does the existing token's legal/regulatory position allow?


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://docs.rwa-chain.io/token-migration.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.