5 Surprising Realities of Tokenisation

5 Surprising Realities of Tokenisation

In institutional and fintech circles, "tokenisation" has become a term many professionals nod at while privately harboring fundamental questions. The industry often obscures the core reality with jargon, leaving participants to wonder: what is the nature of the claim? Are you holding a piece of code, a legal document, or a direct stake in a physical asset?

To navigate this landscape, one must view tokenisation through a pragmatic lens: it is a digital ticket to ownership. Much like a boarding pass provides proof of a right to travel and permission to board, a token serves as the digital evolution of the car logbook or the share certificate. It provides proof, permission, and control.

The Strategic Framework: Three Diagnostic Questions

Before evaluating any tokenised offering, a strategic participant must apply this three-part toolkit to determine its validity:

1. What does the token represent? Is it direct ownership, a claim on an underlying asset, or a right to future cash flows?

2. Who recognizes it as real? Technology is secondary to the "referee"—the authority that validates the record.

3. When the token moves, what actually moves? Does the transfer trigger a change in legal ownership, a transfer of value, or both?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Tokens Don't Hold Value, They Hold Rights

A common misconception is that a token functions like a digital vault containing cash. It does not. Strategically, a token is a "handle" or a record on a distributed ledger. The value does not reside within the blockchain; rather, the blockchain serves as the definitive record of who holds the rights associated with the asset.

"A token does not hold value. A token holds rights."

These rights—to own, to sell, to receive dividends, or to redeem—are what give the token utility. This shifts the focus from "crypto-wealth" to "legal control." If you hold a tokenised share, your digital wallet does not contain the share’s value; it contains the digital proof that entitles you to that value in the eyes of the issuer.

2. Without a "Referee," Your Token is a Digital Sticker

Every high-value asset requires a central authority to dictate its ownership status. These are the "referees" of the financial world: Land Registries for real estate, transfer agents for shares, and bank ledgers for currency.

Tokenisation is only effective if the referee agrees that the token is the official instrument of control. If the official registry does not recognize the token, the token loses its power. It becomes a "digital sticker"—technically functional on a blockchain, but legally impotent in the physical world. The primary bottleneck for the industry is not the maturity of the code, but the institutional adoption by these referees. The technology does not replace authority; the authority must adopt the technology.

3. Transferring a Token is Not a Sale

Consider a tokenised house deed. Sending that token to another party does not inherently constitute a sale. A complete transaction requires the alignment of two distinct movements:

1. The Ownership Move: The transfer of the token (the deed).

2. The Value Move: The transfer of payment (the money).

If only the token moves, the asset has been gifted, not sold. The ultimate objective of the fintech industry is to achieve Atomic Settlement—often referred to as Delivery versus Payment (DvP). This is the "Holy Grail" of tokenisation: ensuring that ownership and value move cleanly and simultaneously, eliminating counterparty risk and settlement delays.

4. Financial Tokens: Balances Over Collectibles

There is a frequent conflation between tokenisation (the process) and NFTs (the format). While NFTs are essential for unique, non-interchangeable assets like a specific piece of real estate or a unique contract, most financial assets are fungible.

In professional finance, tokenisation rarely looks like a digital image or a unique document. Instead, it follows one of two primary models:

• Model A (The Unit Model): Users see a balance of units in a wallet, similar to a currency balance. If a company issues one million share-tokens, owning 100 tokens simply means owning 100 shares.

• Model B (The Register Model): This mimics traditional ledgers where a "named entry" records that a specific account owns a specific amount.

For the end user, owning tokenised shares feels less like holding a collectible and more like checking a balance on a banking application.

5. Shift Focus from "Backing" to "Enforceability"

While stablecoins require "backing" (cash reserves), ownership tokens—such as those for deeds or equities—rely on legal enforceability.

It is a mistake to assume the asset’s value lives within the underlying network’s native cryptocurrency (such as XRP or ETH). While these native coins provide "network fuel" to execute transactions or provide "liquidity" for trading, they do not store the value of the tokenised house or share. The value is external, determined by market prices and secured by the legal frameworks that ensure the token-holder is recognized as the rightful owner.

Conclusion: The Evolution of Trust

Tokenisation represents the digital maturation of the share certificate and the car logbook. It is a transition toward a more streamlined, "digital ticket" version of ownership. However, this future relies heavily on trust. As we move toward a cross-chain environment, it is important to note that ownership does not move between different blockchains through "magic"; it moves through bridges, custodians, or shared systems that require a high degree of institutional trust.

The fundamental shift is not just technical, but psychological. How will your perception of "ownership" change when it is no longer a paper document filed by a third party, but a digital ticket you control directly?

‍