Do AML and crypto compliance professionals need to understand ERC-3643 for RWA tokenization roles?

I am seeing more discussion around ERC-3643, compliant RWA tokenization, and security token infrastructure.

This made me think about a career dilemma for people already working in AML, crypto compliance, wallet risk, or blockchain forensics.

If someone wants to move into RWA tokenization or institutional digital asset compliance roles, is normal AML experience still enough?

Or do hiring teams now expect candidates to understand how compliance rules connect with tokenized asset workflows?

For example, in RWA tokenization, KYC status, investor eligibility, jurisdiction rules, identity claims, and transfer permissions may directly affect whether a wallet can receive, hold, transfer, or redeem a tokenized asset.

So where is the line now?

Should AML and crypto compliance candidates learn the basics of ERC-3643-style permissioned token systems, on-chain identity, and restricted transfers?

And on the other side, should smart contract developers working on compliant RWA tokenization show proof that they understand compliance modules, blocked transfer cases, and investor eligibility logic?

Curious how hiring teams are likely to evaluate this.

For RWA tokenization careers, is the stronger profile now someone who only knows compliance, only knows smart contracts, or someone who can explain how compliance rules become on-chain permissions?