{"id":891322,"date":"2026-02-09T23:12:38","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T05:12:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/02\/09\/rwa-tokenisation-in-the-uae-what-asset-owners-and-issuers-need-to-know-in-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-02-09T23:12:38","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T05:12:38","slug":"rwa-tokenisation-in-the-uae-what-asset-owners-and-issuers-need-to-know-in-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2026\/02\/09\/rwa-tokenisation-in-the-uae-what-asset-owners-and-issuers-need-to-know-in-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"RWA Tokenisation in the UAE: What Asset Owners and Issuers Need to Know in 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation is no
\nlonger a conceptual framework. For asset owners and issuers, it has become a
\npractical question of structure, governance, and regulatory recognition, one
\nincreasingly addressed at the board and shareholder level rather than in
\ninnovation labs.\n<\/p>\n

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in
\nthe UAE, where regulatory regimes (rules and frameworks for overseeing
\nfinancial activities), market infrastructure (the systems that enable trading
\nand settlement of financial assets), and institutional capital (large-scale
\ninvestment from organisations such as funds or banks) have converged to make
\nasset digitisation executable rather than experimental. <\/p>\n

\nAs a result, RWA tokenisation is being
\nevaluated not as a technology initiative, but as a capital-markets and
\nasset-structuring exercise.\n<\/p>\n

The Mandate: From Feasibility to an
\nExecution-Ready Tokenisation Blueprint<\/strong><\/h2>\n

At the institutional level, tokenisation
\ndoes not begin with token design. It begins with feasibility, specifically,
\nwhether a tokenised structure can be built that is legally enforceable,
\nlicensed by a reputable regulator, and, most importantly, commercially viable
\nover time.<\/p>\n

In practice, feasibility rapidly expands
\ninto the design of a full tokenisation blueprint<\/a>. This includes defining the
\nprogram’s scope, the token’s lifecycle, the relationship between the underlying
\nasset and the token’s economics, and the operational dependencies required to
\nsupport issuance, holding, and potential secondary activity.<\/p>\n

For boards and senior management,
\ntokenisation is credible only when presented as a complete system. Isolated
\ntoken issuance, without clarity on custody, governance, audit, and regulatory
\npositioning, would not survive institutional scrutiny. The shift from
\nfeasibility to blueprint is therefore the first important step.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\ud83c\udde6\ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf6\ud83c\udde6HUGE: After UAE, Qatar Financial Centre to kick off real estate tokenization, starting with over $500M worth of towers.<\/p>\n

Also in the pipeline: tokenized investment funds and a fresh digital asset regulatory framework.<\/p>\n

Dubai picked XRP Ledger for real estate tokenization as\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/ajlGvWyW1s<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u2014 Stellar Rippler\ud83d\ude80 (@StellarNews007) May 25, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Asset Classification in the UAE: How
\nRegulators Actually Assess RWA Tokens<\/strong><\/h2>\n

One of the most critical and most
\nfrequently misunderstood elements of RWA tokenisation in the UAE<\/a> is regulatory
\nclassification.<\/p>\n

The UAE applies an activity-based
\nregulatory approach, meaning that regulation depends on the specific financial
\nactivities involved rather than the product label. Regulators focus on what a
\ntoken represents economically, the rights and obligations it creates, and the
\nactivities surrounding its issuance and distribution. Labels such as
\n“utility token” or “security token” are secondary, and are
\nnot even present in the regulations.<\/p>\n

In practice, this means that asset-backed
\ntokens may or may not trigger regulated financial activity, depending on the
\njurisdiction of the issuance. This assessment has material consequences
\nfor licensing requirements, disclosure obligations, custody rules, and investor
\naccess.<\/p>\n

Engagement commonly spans multiple
\nauthorities, including the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority<\/a>, the Abu
\nDhabi Global Market, and relevant federal regulators such as the Capital
\nMarkets Authority (CMA) and even the UAE Central Bank. Selecting the
\nappropriate regulatory perimeter is therefore one of the most important
\nstructuring decisions.<\/p>\n

Token Design Must Follow Asset Economics<\/strong><\/h2>\n

A recurring lesson in execution is that
\ntoken design cannot get abstracted from the underlying asset.<\/p>\n

Physical commodities, income-producing
\nassets, and infrastructure projects each exhibit different economic
\ncharacteristics, yield profiles, liquidity constraints, operational risks, and
\ncustody requirements. These characteristics dictate how value can be
\nrepresented digitally and what claims tokenholders can reasonably expect.<\/p>\n

In practice, this requires mapping asset
\neconomics into enforceable tokenholder rights, issuer obligations, and risk
\nallocation mechanisms. Yield-bearing structures<\/a>, for example, must clearly
\narticulate the source of yield, payment mechanics, and conditions under which
\nreturns may be suspended or adjusted.<\/p>\n

Tokens designed independently of asset
\nrealities may function technically, but they tend to collapse under regulatory,
\nauditor, or investor review. Institutional-grade RWA tokenisation succeeds when
\nthe token is a faithful economic representation of the asset, not a financial
\nabstraction layered on top of it.<\/p>\n

Custody and Bankruptcy Remoteness: The
\nInstitutional Gatekeepers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Custody architecture is often the single
\nmost decisive factor in whether an RWA tokenisation project progresses.<\/p>\n

Regulators, auditors, and institutional
\ninvestors focus first on asset control: who holds legal title, how assets are
\nsafeguarded, and whether they are insulated from issuer insolvency. These
\nquestions are not theoretical; they determine whether a tokenised structure is
\nconsidered credible.<\/p>\n

In practice, this usually involves
\nthird-party custodianship<\/a>, clear asset segregation, and bankruptcy-remote
\narrangements that correspond to off-chain legal title with on-chain
\nrepresentation.<\/p>\n

Without this alignment, tokenised assets
\nstruggle to meet institutional acceptance thresholds, regardless of the quality
\nof the technology stack.<\/p>\n

Audit, Verification, and
\nProof-of-Reserves<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Institutional RWA tokenisation requires
\ncontinuous credibility rather than one-time assurances.
\nIndependent audit and verification frameworks, therefore, become foundational.
\nThese may include proof-of-reserves mechanisms, reconciliation between on-chain
\nrecords and off-chain custody, and periodic reporting aligned with regulatory
\nand investor expectations.<\/p>\n

In practice, auditors often become de facto
\nstakeholders in the design of tokenisation<\/a>. Their ability to verify asset
\nexistence, control, and flows directly influences the regulator’s confidence
\nand investors’ trust. Projects that defer audit considerations until late in
\nthe process frequently face costly redesigns.<\/p>\n

Governance On-Chain and Off-Chain<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Tokenisation materially raises governance
\nstandards. Institutional RWA structures require clearly defined issuer
\nobligations, tokenholder rights, operational controls, and escalation
\nmechanisms. These governance models must operate coherently across smart
\ncontracts and traditional legal documentation.<\/p>\n

Boards and regulators pay particular
\nattention to accountability: who can make changes, under what conditions, and
\nhow those changes are communicated. Governance design is therefore not an
\naccessory to tokenisation\u2014it is central to approval and sustained viability.<\/p>\n

Read more: SEC Clarifies the Rules Around Tokenised Stocks – Will It Encourage US Issuers Now?<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal Architecture and Cross-Border
\nStructuring<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Institutional RWA tokenisation in the UAE
\nis rarely confined to a single jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Legal architecture must address
\nenforceability, liability allocation, disclosure obligations, and cross-border
\nregulatory interactions.<\/p>\n

Given the issuer\u2019s international footprint,
\na comparative analysis was also conducted across the UAE, Switzerland, and the
\nEU under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), a European Union legal
\nframework for crypto-asset markets. While MiCA provides standardisation and
\nclarity, it also introduces heavier disclosure and liability regimes.
\nSwitzerland offers alternative structuring options, each with its own
\ntrade-offs.<\/p>\n

In many institutional cases, hybrid
\nstructures emerge as the most pragmatic solution. The UAE frequently serves as
\nthe anchor jurisdiction due to its flexibility and regulator engagement model,
\nwhile other jurisdictions are integrated where appropriate.<\/p>\n

Commercial Execution and Board-Level
\nDecision Frameworks<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Regulatory compliance, though essential, is
\nonly one component of a viable RWA tokenisation program. In practice, many
\ntechnically compliant projects still fail to progress because commercial
\nexecution has not been adequately designed or stress-tested.<\/p>\n

At the institutional level, tokenisation
\ndelivers a new operational and economic model that must function coherently
\nacross issuance, holding, servicing, and\u2014where applicable\u2014secondary activity.
\nThis requires clearly defined token issuance flows, lifecycle mechanics, and
\nrisk apportionment across all participating parties, including the issuer,
\nasset custodian, auditor, technology providers, and any distribution or trading
\nvenues.<\/p>\n

From an execution standpoint, one of the
\nmost critical deliverables is translating these design choices into board-level
\nbriefing materials and decision frameworks. Senior stakeholders are not
\nevaluating tokenisation on novelty<\/a>; they are assessing downside risk, capital
\nefficiency, reputational exposure, regulatory durability, as well as strategic
\noptionality. They expect to understand how the structure behaves under stress
\nscenarios, how liabilities are allocated, and what operational dependencies
\nexist over the life of the program.<\/p>\n

Projects that reach execution successfully
\ntend to share a common characteristic: tokenisation is treated as a coordinated
\ncommercial program from the outset, with defined ownership, governance, and
\naccountability. By contrast, initiatives that approach tokenisation primarily
\nas a compliance exercise commonly struggle to secure final approvals, as
\ncommercial and operational questions surface too late in the process.<\/p>\n

The Core Lesson for Asset Owners and
\nIssuers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Once tokenisation moves from concept into execution, a consistent lesson emerges: RWA tokenisation is not a single discipline, nor can it be delivered by any one function in isolation. Successful institutional tokenisation requires integrating multiple domains – asset
\neconomics, regulatory classification, legal structuring, custody design, audit
\nand verification, governance, and ongoing operational execution. Weakness or
\nambiguity in any one of these areas tends to undermine confidence in the entire
\nstructure.<\/p>\n

For asset owners, this frequently
\nrepresents a cultural shift. Tokenisation exposes assumptions that may have
\nbeen implicit in traditional asset structures, forcing explicit decisions
\naround control, transparency, and accountability. It also demands closer
\ncoordination between legal, finance, operations, and technology teams than many
\norganisations are accustomed to.<\/p>\n

Where these elements are aligned into a
\nsingle, logical framework, tokenisation becomes a durable institutional
\nsolution, capable of sustaining long-term capital strategies and regulatory
\nengagement. Where they are not, tokenisation remains an experimental
\ninitiative, vulnerable to regulatory pushback, investor scepticism, or
\noperational friction.<\/p>\n

Complexity Is a Challenge<\/h2>\n

The UAE has positioned itself as one of the
\nmost credible and commercially viable environments globally for institutional
\nRWA tokenisation. Its regulatory posture, market infrastructure, and engagement
\nmodel provide asset owners with a framework for assessing and implementing
\ntokenisation with a high degree of confidence.<\/p>\n

That said, the UAE\u2019s advantages do not
\neliminate complexity. They reward asset owners and issuers who approach
\ntokenisation as a structural, regulatory, and governance challenge rather than
\na technology launch or branding exercise.<\/p>\n

In institutional RWA tokenisation, the
\ndifference between concept and execution is not incremental. It is decisive.
\nReal value is created not at the point of issuance, but in the quality of the
\nframework that supports the asset over its lifecycle.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation is no
\nlonger a conceptual framework. For asset owners and issuers, it has become a
\npractical question of structure, governance, and regulatory recognition, one
\nincreasingly addressed at the board and shareholder level rather than in
\ninnovation labs.\n<\/p>\n

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in
\nthe UAE, where regulatory regimes (rules and frameworks for overseeing
\nfinancial activities), market infrastructure (the systems that enable trading
\nand settlement of financial assets), and institutional capital (large-scale
\ninvestment from organisations such as funds or banks) have converged to make
\nasset digitisation executable rather than experimental. <\/p>\n

\nAs a result, RWA tokenisation is being
\nevaluated not as a technology initiative, but as a capital-markets and
\nasset-structuring exercise.\n<\/p>\n

The Mandate: From Feasibility to an
\nExecution-Ready Tokenisation Blueprint<\/strong><\/h2>\n

At the institutional level, tokenisation
\ndoes not begin with token design. It begins with feasibility, specifically,
\nwhether a tokenised structure can be built that is legally enforceable,
\nlicensed by a reputable regulator, and, most importantly, commercially viable
\nover time.<\/p>\n

In practice, feasibility rapidly expands
\ninto the design of a full tokenisation blueprint<\/a>. This includes defining the
\nprogram’s scope, the token’s lifecycle, the relationship between the underlying
\nasset and the token’s economics, and the operational dependencies required to
\nsupport issuance, holding, and potential secondary activity.<\/p>\n

For boards and senior management,
\ntokenisation is credible only when presented as a complete system. Isolated
\ntoken issuance, without clarity on custody, governance, audit, and regulatory
\npositioning, would not survive institutional scrutiny. The shift from
\nfeasibility to blueprint is therefore the first important step.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\ud83c\udde6\ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf6\ud83c\udde6HUGE: After UAE, Qatar Financial Centre to kick off real estate tokenization, starting with over $500M worth of towers.<\/p>\n

Also in the pipeline: tokenized investment funds and a fresh digital asset regulatory framework.<\/p>\n

Dubai picked XRP Ledger for real estate tokenization as\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/ajlGvWyW1s<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u2014 Stellar Rippler\ud83d\ude80 (@StellarNews007) May 25, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Asset Classification in the UAE: How
\nRegulators Actually Assess RWA Tokens<\/strong><\/h2>\n

One of the most critical and most
\nfrequently misunderstood elements of RWA tokenisation in the UAE<\/a> is regulatory
\nclassification.<\/p>\n

The UAE applies an activity-based
\nregulatory approach, meaning that regulation depends on the specific financial
\nactivities involved rather than the product label. Regulators focus on what a
\ntoken represents economically, the rights and obligations it creates, and the
\nactivities surrounding its issuance and distribution. Labels such as
\n“utility token” or “security token” are secondary, and are
\nnot even present in the regulations.<\/p>\n

In practice, this means that asset-backed
\ntokens may or may not trigger regulated financial activity, depending on the
\njurisdiction of the issuance. This assessment has material consequences
\nfor licensing requirements, disclosure obligations, custody rules, and investor
\naccess.<\/p>\n

Engagement commonly spans multiple
\nauthorities, including the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority<\/a>, the Abu
\nDhabi Global Market, and relevant federal regulators such as the Capital
\nMarkets Authority (CMA) and even the UAE Central Bank. Selecting the
\nappropriate regulatory perimeter is therefore one of the most important
\nstructuring decisions.<\/p>\n

Token Design Must Follow Asset Economics<\/strong><\/h2>\n

A recurring lesson in execution is that
\ntoken design cannot get abstracted from the underlying asset.<\/p>\n

Physical commodities, income-producing
\nassets, and infrastructure projects each exhibit different economic
\ncharacteristics, yield profiles, liquidity constraints, operational risks, and
\ncustody requirements. These characteristics dictate how value can be
\nrepresented digitally and what claims tokenholders can reasonably expect.<\/p>\n

In practice, this requires mapping asset
\neconomics into enforceable tokenholder rights, issuer obligations, and risk
\nallocation mechanisms. Yield-bearing structures<\/a>, for example, must clearly
\narticulate the source of yield, payment mechanics, and conditions under which
\nreturns may be suspended or adjusted.<\/p>\n

Tokens designed independently of asset
\nrealities may function technically, but they tend to collapse under regulatory,
\nauditor, or investor review. Institutional-grade RWA tokenisation succeeds when
\nthe token is a faithful economic representation of the asset, not a financial
\nabstraction layered on top of it.<\/p>\n

Custody and Bankruptcy Remoteness: The
\nInstitutional Gatekeepers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Custody architecture is often the single
\nmost decisive factor in whether an RWA tokenisation project progresses.<\/p>\n

Regulators, auditors, and institutional
\ninvestors focus first on asset control: who holds legal title, how assets are
\nsafeguarded, and whether they are insulated from issuer insolvency. These
\nquestions are not theoretical; they determine whether a tokenised structure is
\nconsidered credible.<\/p>\n

In practice, this usually involves
\nthird-party custodianship<\/a>, clear asset segregation, and bankruptcy-remote
\narrangements that correspond to off-chain legal title with on-chain
\nrepresentation.<\/p>\n

Without this alignment, tokenised assets
\nstruggle to meet institutional acceptance thresholds, regardless of the quality
\nof the technology stack.<\/p>\n

Audit, Verification, and
\nProof-of-Reserves<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Institutional RWA tokenisation requires
\ncontinuous credibility rather than one-time assurances.
\nIndependent audit and verification frameworks, therefore, become foundational.
\nThese may include proof-of-reserves mechanisms, reconciliation between on-chain
\nrecords and off-chain custody, and periodic reporting aligned with regulatory
\nand investor expectations.<\/p>\n

In practice, auditors often become de facto
\nstakeholders in the design of tokenisation<\/a>. Their ability to verify asset
\nexistence, control, and flows directly influences the regulator’s confidence
\nand investors’ trust. Projects that defer audit considerations until late in
\nthe process frequently face costly redesigns.<\/p>\n

Governance On-Chain and Off-Chain<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Tokenisation materially raises governance
\nstandards. Institutional RWA structures require clearly defined issuer
\nobligations, tokenholder rights, operational controls, and escalation
\nmechanisms. These governance models must operate coherently across smart
\ncontracts and traditional legal documentation.<\/p>\n

Boards and regulators pay particular
\nattention to accountability: who can make changes, under what conditions, and
\nhow those changes are communicated. Governance design is therefore not an
\naccessory to tokenisation\u2014it is central to approval and sustained viability.<\/p>\n

Read more: SEC Clarifies the Rules Around Tokenised Stocks – Will It Encourage US Issuers Now?<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal Architecture and Cross-Border
\nStructuring<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Institutional RWA tokenisation in the UAE
\nis rarely confined to a single jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Legal architecture must address
\nenforceability, liability allocation, disclosure obligations, and cross-border
\nregulatory interactions.<\/p>\n

Given the issuer\u2019s international footprint,
\na comparative analysis was also conducted across the UAE, Switzerland, and the
\nEU under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), a European Union legal
\nframework for crypto-asset markets. While MiCA provides standardisation and
\nclarity, it also introduces heavier disclosure and liability regimes.
\nSwitzerland offers alternative structuring options, each with its own
\ntrade-offs.<\/p>\n

In many institutional cases, hybrid
\nstructures emerge as the most pragmatic solution. The UAE frequently serves as
\nthe anchor jurisdiction due to its flexibility and regulator engagement model,
\nwhile other jurisdictions are integrated where appropriate.<\/p>\n

Commercial Execution and Board-Level
\nDecision Frameworks<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Regulatory compliance, though essential, is
\nonly one component of a viable RWA tokenisation program. In practice, many
\ntechnically compliant projects still fail to progress because commercial
\nexecution has not been adequately designed or stress-tested.<\/p>\n

At the institutional level, tokenisation
\ndelivers a new operational and economic model that must function coherently
\nacross issuance, holding, servicing, and\u2014where applicable\u2014secondary activity.
\nThis requires clearly defined token issuance flows, lifecycle mechanics, and
\nrisk apportionment across all participating parties, including the issuer,
\nasset custodian, auditor, technology providers, and any distribution or trading
\nvenues.<\/p>\n

From an execution standpoint, one of the
\nmost critical deliverables is translating these design choices into board-level
\nbriefing materials and decision frameworks. Senior stakeholders are not
\nevaluating tokenisation on novelty<\/a>; they are assessing downside risk, capital
\nefficiency, reputational exposure, regulatory durability, as well as strategic
\noptionality. They expect to understand how the structure behaves under stress
\nscenarios, how liabilities are allocated, and what operational dependencies
\nexist over the life of the program.<\/p>\n

Projects that reach execution successfully
\ntend to share a common characteristic: tokenisation is treated as a coordinated
\ncommercial program from the outset, with defined ownership, governance, and
\naccountability. By contrast, initiatives that approach tokenisation primarily
\nas a compliance exercise commonly struggle to secure final approvals, as
\ncommercial and operational questions surface too late in the process.<\/p>\n

The Core Lesson for Asset Owners and
\nIssuers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Once tokenisation moves from concept into execution, a consistent lesson emerges: RWA tokenisation is not a single discipline, nor can it be delivered by any one function in isolation. Successful institutional tokenisation requires integrating multiple domains – asset
\neconomics, regulatory classification, legal structuring, custody design, audit
\nand verification, governance, and ongoing operational execution. Weakness or
\nambiguity in any one of these areas tends to undermine confidence in the entire
\nstructure.<\/p>\n

For asset owners, this frequently
\nrepresents a cultural shift. Tokenisation exposes assumptions that may have
\nbeen implicit in traditional asset structures, forcing explicit decisions
\naround control, transparency, and accountability. It also demands closer
\ncoordination between legal, finance, operations, and technology teams than many
\norganisations are accustomed to.<\/p>\n

Where these elements are aligned into a
\nsingle, logical framework, tokenisation becomes a durable institutional
\nsolution, capable of sustaining long-term capital strategies and regulatory
\nengagement. Where they are not, tokenisation remains an experimental
\ninitiative, vulnerable to regulatory pushback, investor scepticism, or
\noperational friction.<\/p>\n

Complexity Is a Challenge<\/h2>\n

The UAE has positioned itself as one of the
\nmost credible and commercially viable environments globally for institutional
\nRWA tokenisation. Its regulatory posture, market infrastructure, and engagement
\nmodel provide asset owners with a framework for assessing and implementing
\ntokenisation with a high degree of confidence.<\/p>\n

That said, the UAE\u2019s advantages do not
\neliminate complexity. They reward asset owners and issuers who approach
\ntokenisation as a structural, regulatory, and governance challenge rather than
\na technology launch or branding exercise.<\/p>\n

In institutional RWA tokenisation, the
\ndifference between concept and execution is not incremental. It is decisive.
\nReal value is created not at the point of issuance, but in the quality of the
\nframework that supports the asset over its lifecycle.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a>
\n Anton Golub<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation is no longer a conceptual framework. For asset owners and issuers, it has become a practical question of structure, governance, and regulatory recognition, one increasingly addressed at the board and shareholder level rather than in innovation labs. Nowhere is this shift more visible than in the UAE, where regulatory regimes (rules<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":891323,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36181,142632],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-891322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-asset","category-tokenisation"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891322\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/891323"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}