For many years, tokenisation was perceived as a technological experiment rather than a structural development in financial markets. It was associated with digital native platforms, new forms of issuance and a certain degree of legal ambiguity. The implicit assumption was that if an asset could be represented on a distributed ledger and transferred globally within seconds, ownership itself had somehow been modernised.
That perception is now quietly evolving.
Tokenisation undoubtedly changes how assets are recorded and transferred. It can streamline processes, reduce friction and increase transparency. What it does not automatically change is the legal foundation of ownership. Property rights, enforceability and governance frameworks do not migrate onto a ledger simply because an asset is digitally represented.
What Institutions Are Actually Saying
This distinction is not theoretical. It has been addressed directly by leading international bodies.
The Bank for International Settlements in its Annual Economic Report 2023 explains that tokenisation alters the form in which assets are documented and transferred, but legal claims and property rights remain anchored in existing legal systems. The ledger does not replace the law. It operates within it.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its 2020 report on asset tokenisation highlights that legal certainty remains one of the central challenges. In several jurisdictions, the enforceability of tokenised ownership continues to depend more on contractual arrangements than on clearly codified property law.
More recently, the Financial Stability Board in its 2024 report on the financial stability implications of tokenisation has pointed to operational considerations such as custody concentration, smart contract vulnerabilities and dependencies on specific service providers.
Taken together, these observations do not question the relevance of tokenisation. They clarify its limits.
Market Practice: Where Structure Matters
In current market practice, many tokenised structures still operate within private platform ecosystems. Custody is frequently account based rather than linked to legally segregated entities. Ownership rights are often defined in platform documentation. Fiat access may depend on specific banking relationships.
In such environments, if a platform changes its terms, restricts transfers or faces financial distress, the position of the token holder is determined primarily by contractual architecture rather than by property law.
For high net worth individuals and family offices, this distinction is not academic. It directly affects enforceability, succession planning and cross border recognition.
Institutional Maturation and Public Signals
At the same time, the broader digital asset environment has entered a more institutional phase. Public disclosures illustrate this development. Tesla has reported digital asset holdings in its filings. BlackRock has introduced regulated investment products with digital asset exposure within established supervisory frameworks.
These are not speculative gestures. They are publicly verifiable actions within regulated contexts. They signal that digital assets and related infrastructures are increasingly being evaluated through institutional governance standards rather than technological enthusiasm.
The View from Practice
From our daily work at CorPa, operating at the intersection of digital asset expertise and legal structuring, we observe that the decisive question is no longer whether an asset can be tokenised. The real question is how it is structured.
Is the token connected to a legally recognised ownership vehicle.
Is custody embedded within a regulated or supervised framework.
Is succession enforceable under applicable property and inheritance law, particularly across jurisdictions.
Where these elements are clearly defined within trusts, foundations or properly structured entities, tokenisation can function as institutional infrastructure. Where they are not, it remains primarily a contractual arrangement supported by technology.
Reframing Volatility
Volatility has often dominated the public narrative around digital assets. Yet volatility in emerging asset classes is not unusual. What matters is the structural environment in which it occurs.
Volatility without governance can signal fragility. Volatility combined with regulated custody, transparent reporting and institutional participation reflects a market in transition toward maturity. It becomes part of price discovery within an evolving framework rather than an indicator of structural weakness.
Innovation or Hidden Risk?
Tokenisation is neither inherently transformative nor inherently hazardous. It is an infrastructural tool.
It becomes an innovation when embedded within enforceable legal architecture.
It becomes a risk when technological advancement outpaces ownership clarity, governance and legal certainty.
Technology can redefine how assets are represented and transferred. The law continues to determine who ultimately owns them.
What once appeared to be a niche technological development is now being assessed through the lens of governance, enforceability and institutional structure. That shift, more than the technology itself, marks the true maturation of tokenisation.
References
Bank for International Settlements. (2023). Blueprint for the future monetary system: Improving the old, enabling the new. Annual Economic Report 2023.
Financial Stability Board. (2024). The financial stability implications of tokenisation.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). The tokenisation of assets and potential implications for financial markets.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Regulatory approaches to the tokenisation of assets.
