On May 14, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act in a 15-9 vote. All 13 Republicans voted yes. Two Democrats, Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, crossed the aisle to give the bill its bipartisan margin.^[1] Before reaching the floor, the committee text must be reconciled with a parallel CFTC jurisdiction framework, a process expected to take several weeks.^[11]

Getting to 60 votes requires at least seven Democrats who did not vote yes in committee to cross over. The Van Hollen ethics amendment, which would have barred senior government officials from holding certain crypto business interests, failed 11-13 and remains the live issue heading into floor negotiations.^[1] Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone told reporters that resolving it is likely what gets the bill past the threshold:

“I imagine the deal will be completed before this goes to the floor, because they’ll want to only bring it to the floor if they feel confident they’ve got 60.”

Galaxy Research raised its passage probability to 75% following the committee vote, with head of research Alex Thorn estimating a signing during the week of August 3 if Congress maintains its current pace, a more conservative timeline than the White House’s July 4 target.^[11] Large financial services institutions have been building in anticipation of passage since at least Q1. The distance between a presidential signature and a functioning regulatory market is the part that hasn’t been fully priced in.

Subscribe now

What Passage Actually Produces

Jurisdictional certainty is the primary output, and it is not a small thing. For years, the SEC and the CFTC both claimed authority over digital assets, leaving the industry with two regulators and no clear rules. Courts made it worse: a 2023 decision in the Ripple case held that institutional XRP sales were securities transactions while programmatic sales on exchanges were not, and a separate ruling in the Terraform case reached the opposite conclusion weeks later.^[3]

The CLARITY Act ends the scuttlebutt between the CFTC and the SEC. The SEC retains authority over investment contract assets and fundraising. The CFTC takes primary oversight of spot digital commodity markets. Two agencies, defined lanes, written into law.

White House crypto advisor Patrick Witt, who serves as the Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets and Deputy Director of the White House Council on Digital Assets, clearly articulated the administration’s stance on scope at Consensus Miami.

“CLARITY Act passage would give the crypto industry roughly 90% of what it needs.”

The remaining 10% sits in places the bill was never designed to reach.^[11]

The bill includes a decentralization test that determines which regulatory lane a digital asset falls into. Once a blockchain network meets certain criteria, including no single party controlling more than 20% of it, tokens issued on that network can be reclassified from securities to commodities for secondary market purposes.^[3] For founders and token issuers who have spent years not knowing which regulator applies to them, that reclassification pathway is the most practically significant thing in the bill. Registration categories are established for exchanges, brokers, dealers, and custodians, creating legal pathways to operate that have not previously existed. Developers who build software or run infrastructure but don’t control user funds get specific protections under the bill, exempting them from registration requirements under certain conditions that will be defined through rulemaking.^[3]

On stablecoin yield, the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise restricts passive, deposit-like yield on payment stablecoins while permitting activity-based rewards under tighter oversight. That distinction drove more than 8,000 letters from American Bankers Association members to Senate offices in the five days before the committee vote^[1] and stalled the bill for four months.

The definitions now exist. The rules that make them operational do not.

Share The RWA Ledger

What Does a Signature on CLARITY Not Close?

The Rulemaking Gap

Here is the sequence once the bill is signed. The CFTC must establish a provisional registration process before firms can register. The House-passed version of the bill requires that process to open within 180 days of enactment; the Senate Banking Committee version sets the floor at 270 days. The final timeline will emerge from reconciliation between the two chambers, but the direction is the same either way: a registration window opens, and from the day it does, exchanges, brokers, and dealers have 90 days to register. [ 4 ] [ 23 ]

The rulemaking itself runs on a longer clock. The SEC and CFTC are required to jointly issue rules before the bill’s definitions become fully binding, a process that includes mandatory public comment periods and revision rounds built into federal law. A realistic read puts a fully operational regulatory regime no earlier than late 2027, with many provisions extending into 2028. [ 3 ]

The CFTC Capacity Constraint

Congress has handed the CFTC primary oversight of a spot digital commodity market measured in trillions of dollars. The agency’s FY2027 budget request leaves enforcement staffing below FY2025 actual levels, meaning the mandate grows while the headcount shrinks.^[5] The CFTC’s own Inspector General flagged digital-asset legislation and human-capital management as its top challenges for FY2026 before the committee even voted.^[5] House Financial Services Committee leaders made the gap explicit in a May 15 letter to President Trump, noting that a full five-member commission would produce better and more durable rules.^[5] As of the committee vote, the CFTC had one confirmed chairman.

TEFRA is Still in a Separate Lane

There is a 1982 tax law called TEFRA, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, that was written long before blockchain existed and was never intended to touch it. The problem is that when you transfer a tokenized bond between self-custodial wallets on a permissionless blockchain, the mechanism looks, under TEFRA’s language, like the transfer of a bearer instrument: a physical certificate with no registered owner that the law was specifically designed to prevent. The penalties are significant: interest deductions denied, excise taxes at issuance, capital gains reclassified as ordinary income, and 30% withholding on interest payments, regardless of the investor’s location. None of that is resolved by the CLARITY Act, and no active legislative vehicle addresses it. I covered the full constraint in an earlier piece, linked below.^[10]

The Decision Window

The 12 to 18 months between a signature and an enforceable rule set is the build period, and it is not arriving on a clean slate.

A 2024 Bank Policy Institute survey of 20 financial institutions, including global systemically important banks and major regionals, found that between 2016 and 2023, employee hours dedicated to compliance grew by 61%, while total employee hours grew by 20%.^[6] Compliance is growing at three times the rate of the financial services institutions themselves. C-suite time devoted to regulatory compliance went from 24% in 2016 to 42% in 2023. Board time from 27% to 43%. The BPI survey put it directly:

“The amount of employee time spent complying with financial regulations and responding to examiner mandates is growing, not shrinking.”

The burden is distributed unevenly by size. U.S. financial services institutions spent an estimated $59 billion on BSA/AML compliance in 2023.^[7] Mid-size banks carry compliance costs of approximately 2.9% of non-interest expenses; institutions below $100 million face costs as high as 8.7%.^[7] CSBS researchers, drawing on ten years of community bank data, put it plainly:

“Regulatory costs behave more like a fixed overhead cost than a variable one, meaning they do not scale down gracefully. The smaller the bank, the bigger the bite.”

The compliance teams now fielding CLARITY Act implementation questions at mid-size digital asset firms are, in many cases, the same people who spent the last three years building AML programs for a regulatory environment that kept moving before they could finish. The bill text is finally stable enough to build against. Large institutions are already doing so.

Share

What This Means by Audience

The pressures created by the passage of the CLARITY Act are not uniform. A DeFi founder building toward institutional integration faces a fundamentally different set of decisions than a compliance officer at a registered broker-dealer, a custodian positioning for the post-rulemaking landscape, or an RIA trying to figure out what digital asset exposure actually means for their client accounts right now. Each section below goes deep on a specific role. Jump to what applies to you, or read through — the dynamics interconnect more than they appear to from any single vantage point.

Founders and Builders

The 180-day provisional registration window is the hard constraint on your planning timeline, not the rulemaking calendar. For DeFi founders building toward institutional environments, registration is not the first problem. It is the third or fourth.

Data

DeFi founders tend to walk into early institutional conversations with a reasonable assumption: their protocol is on-chain, the data is public, and that transparency is an asset. Institutions see it differently. Transparency means the ledger is readable. Verification means you can prove who initiated a transaction, who received it, whether either party appears on a sanctions list, and whether the ownership chain is traceable to a real person at every step. Those are different questions, and regulated institutions ask the second set.

A DeFi founder’s first institutional due diligence meeting tends to follow a recognizable arc. The protocol gets demonstrated, the public ledger gets pointed to, and the argument is made that everything is visible and verifiable on-chain. The compliance team listens and then asks for something specific: originator and beneficiary information for a defined set of transactions, formatted for their AML system, with sanctions screening documented at each wallet hop. The protocol doesn’t produce that output. The founder explains the data is all there; it just needs to be extracted. The compliance team asks who does the extraction, how the output gets verified, and whether the format meets their internal requirements. The meeting ends without a clear answer. Before any institutional conversation, founders need to stress-test exactly this scenario against their own stack, because the compliance team will

The Travel Rule

The Travel Rule compounds this. Think of it as the financial system’s requirement that identifying information about a sender and recipient must travel alongside a transfer, the way a wire transfer carries account holder details. FATF’s 2025 Targeted Update confirmed that 73% of responding jurisdictions have now passed legislation requiring exactly this for crypto transfers.^[17] In the US, the threshold is $3,000; stablecoins are covered under the same framework.^[18] When a DeFi protocol operates as a regulated intermediary, that information infrastructure needs to exist at the protocol layer. The CFTC had already drawn this line before the passage of the CLARITY Act: enforcement actions against Opyn, Deridex, ZeroEx, and Polymarket each found that DeFi platforms operating like trading venues must implement KYC and AML programs regardless of how their underlying architecture is described.^[19] CLARITY Act passage gives that enforcement posture a statutory foundation it previously lacked. Building data infrastructure as an afterthought to product architecture is the sequencing error that stops protocols at the institutional due diligence stage rather than the regulatory one.

Vendor Readiness

This problem lives inside your counterparties’ timelines rather than your own. Institutional due diligence for DeFi integration now explicitly evaluates current capabilities in KYC, payments, banking APIs, and identity systems, rather than relying on announced roadmaps.^[20] Some vendors have genuine connectivity. Many are promising capabilities that are 12 to 18 months from delivery. Signing an integration agreement with a vendor whose DeFi-specific features are still in development means absorbing their build schedule into yours, without contractual protection unless you negotiated it before signing. Get current capabilities confirmed in writing, understand where DeFi-specific features sit in their development cycle, and build your integration timeline around what they can deliver now.

Contractual Obligations

Most founders underestimate this one because their mental model of how systems connect is shaped by open protocols rather than legal agreements. Every integration point between a DeFi protocol and a regulated entity requires a corresponding legal layer: indemnification for when a smart contract executes correctly according to its code but produces an outcome a counterparty didn’t anticipate; SLA obligations on uptime and settlement finality that validator dynamics may not be able to guarantee; audit rights as a precondition of integration rather than a request that comes later; data processing agreements for users in jurisdictions with privacy law requirements; and IP licensing questions that open-source licenses do not resolve once third-party protocol components are embedded in a regulated commercial product.

The developer exemption in the bill is meaningful and conditional. Centralized front-ends and application layers may carry AML and KYC obligations even where the underlying smart contracts qualify. Building as though the exemption is unconditional is the most common structural mistake being made right now. The founders who arrive at the registration window with their data architecture, vendor agreements, and legal framework already in place are in the only period when institutional counterparties are still selecting integration partners rather than managing a full onboarding queue.

Institutions, Banks, and Custodians

Institutions

For institutions building tokenized products, the question of sequence matters most right now. Beneficial ownership chain disclosure is not something you layer on after a product is built. It has to be part of how the product is structured at the smart contract and wallet transfer levels, because ownership chains need to be traceable at the protocol layer, not reconstructed from records kept elsewhere after the fact. Getting that wrong means rebuilding the product, not amending a report.

The CLARITY Act also confirms something worth stating plainly for anyone building tokenized products: tokenization is a delivery method, not a new asset class.^[12] A tokenized bond is still a bond. A tokenized fund interest is still a fund interest. The off-chain rules governing registration, reporting, and transfer restrictions follow the underlying asset onto the chain, and any digital commodity trading associated with a tokenized structure, including stablecoin settlement, may trigger CFTC oversight in addition to existing SEC obligations. Running a tokenized product can mean operating under two regulators simultaneously, and the product architecture needs to be designed with that in mind from day one.

Custodians

For custodians specifically, the CLARITY Act creates both the most significant opportunity and the most significant build requirement of any institution type. Registration requirements establish a defined landscape for the first time. The operational standards inside that landscape are still being written through rulemaking. Anchorage Digital, Coinbase Custody, Fidelity Digital Assets, and BitGo are currently positioning for that environment, each differentiated by asset coverage, insurance and indemnification structures, and whether prime brokerage is offered alongside custody. The custodians that use the provisional period to build their operational infrastructure now, before examination standards are finalized and before large institutions have locked in their relationships, are the ones who will shape what qualified custody looks like in practice rather than having it defined for them.

RIAs and Wealth Managers

Most Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs), advising on digital asset exposure right now are operating on interim guidance that was never designed to be permanent. The SEC’s proposed Safeguarding Rule, which would have extended custody requirements to cover all client assets including crypto regardless of whether they were classified as securities, was withdrawn on June 12, 2025, before it was ever adopted.^[13] What replaced it is a single October 2025 no-action letter allowing RIAs to treat certain state-chartered trust companies as qualified custodians for crypto assets, provided those custodians maintain a specific type of independent audit report covering their custody controls.^[13] Not a rule. Not a finalized framework - simply a staff letter with conditions attached.

The CLARITY Act’s decentralization test creates a specific problem on top of that. When a token reclassifies from a security to a commodity, it moves from SEC to CFTC jurisdiction. For an RIA currently holding that token as a security in a client account, the reclassification means the asset may fall outside the existing custody rules, which apply only to client funds and securities, until any replacement rules from CLARITY Act rulemaking are in place to cover it.^[14] The client’s asset doesn’t change. The rules governing how it must be held do, and the gap between those two moments is the period during which your compliance program needs a documented position.

For FINRA-licensed broker-dealers, the exposure is more direct. There is a rule called Regulation Best Interest that requires broker-dealers to act in a client’s best interest when recommending securities.^[15] The operative word is securities. Once a token is reclassified as a commodity, Reg BI no longer governs recommendations about that position. There is no equivalent consumer protection rule at the CFTC for spot commodity recommendations to retail clients, meaning the protection that existed on the way in doesn’t exist on the way out. FINRA has issued no guidance on how member firms should manage that transition for existing client positions. The absence of guidance is not a safe harbor. It is a risk condition your compliance documentation needs to address before reclassification occurs, not after.

Legal, Risk, Compliance & Oversight Professionals

The transition period is the risk period, and the most under-appreciated risk is documentation. Provisional registration means operating under current rules while new ones are written. The gap between what was permissible before and what final rules will require is where enforcement exposure concentrates. The firms best positioned to defend decisions made during that gap are the ones whose compliance records reflect deliberate judgment rather than ambiguity. Build the documented rationale for every material decision made between registration day and final rules now, while the reasoning is current.

The CFTC capacity constraint shapes how that exposure plays out. An agency that cannot fully supervise a newly expanded mandate in its first 18 months creates both risk and some operational runway. That runway is not uniformly distributed; larger, more visible registrants will be examined first. Understanding where you sit in the examination queue is relevant context for how aggressively you build during the provisional period.

What follows are four specific things for legal, risk, compliance, and oversight functions to track in the weeks and months after signing.

The BSA Designation

Section 110 of the CLARITY Act is the provision most compliance teams aren’t tracking closely enough. It designates digital commodity brokers, dealers, and exchanges as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, which means SAR filing obligations, AML program requirements, and FinCEN reporting go live at registration, for firms that in many cases have never carried these obligations before.^[4] If your firm falls into any of these categories and your AML program was built for something lighter, registration day is the hard deadline to upgrade it. There is no grace period built into the BSA designation.

The March 2026 Joint Guidance

Before the CLARITY Act is signed, the SEC and CFTC have already done meaningful preparatory work. In March 2026, the agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding on regulatory harmonization and jointly classified 16 digital assets, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana, as digital commodities.^[4] The agencies cannot publish formal rulemaking proposals until the Act becomes law, but the March guidance is the clearest available signal of how they will approach classification under formal rulemaking.^[21] Legal and compliance teams can build against it now rather than waiting for the first proposed rule.

The Ethics Provision

The Van Hollen amendment’s fate on the Senate floor will determine whether covered officials, senior government employees across agencies, face disclosure or divestiture obligations tied to digital asset holdings. How that provision gets resolved before the floor vote, whether it passes in some form, gets modified, or gets stripped entirely, has direct compliance implications for any firm whose personnel include covered officials or whose counterparties do.^[1] Watch the floor negotiation closely before finalizing any compliance program design that touches this question.

The GENIUS Act Parallel Track

Firms with stablecoin exposure are already running on a separate compliance calendar that doesn’t wait for CLARITY Act rulemaking. The GENIUS Act, signed into law on July 18, 2025, required federal regulators to issue implementing regulations by July 2026, and the law itself takes effect on the earlier of January 18, 2027, or 120 days after final rules are issued.^[22] Compliance programs that treat stablecoin obligations and CLARITY Act obligations as a single workstream will miss the GENIUS Act deadlines. They are different timelines, different regulators, and different program requirements, and the stablecoin clock is already running.

Leave a comment

Where Will You Be By the Time the Ink Dries?

Congressional approval and presidential signature of the CLARITY Act will settle the jurisdictional argument. It will not answer the operational one. Rulemaking, CFTC capacity, TEFRA, and the GENIUS Act’s separate stablecoin timeline will decide who can actually use the new architecture and how fast.

The clock on that window does not start when CLARITY passes. It starts now. Registration comes 180 days after enactment. If your plan assumes you can begin then, you are already building on a deadline you do not control.

Sources

[1] CoinDesk, “Clarity Act Clears U.S. Senate Committee, On Its Way to a Final Test in Congress,” May 14, 2026

Committee vote, Democratic crossover votes, Van Hollen amendment outcome, ABA letter volume, Cody Carbone quote on 60-vote floor strategy.

[2] DeFiRate, CLARITY Act Fact Sheet

Polymarket passage odds and Kennedy fiduciary duty amendment context.

[3] crypto.news, “What the CLARITY Act Actually Says: A Reader’s Guide,” May 2026

Rulemaking timeline, decentralization and 20% control threshold, developer exemption provisions, Ripple/Terraform conflicting rulings.

[4] Unit21, “What the CLARITY Act Means for Your Fintech’s AML Program,” May 2026

180-day provisional registration window, 90-day firm registration deadline, compliance obligations live at registration.

[5] KuCoin / CryptoSlate, “CLARITY Act Advances in Senate, Posing CFTC Capacity Challenges,” May 2026

FY2027 enforcement staffing below FY2025 actuals, CFTC OIG top challenges, House Financial Services Committee May 15 letter to President Trump.

[6] Bank Policy Institute, “Survey Finds Compliance Is Growing Demand on Bank Resources,” October 2024

61% compliance hour growth 2016-2023, C-suite and board time figures, IT budget share increase, direct quote.

[7] LexisNexis Risk Solutions, cited in Fraxtional, “AML Compliance System Costs for Mid-Size Banks in 2026,” May 2026

$59 billion BSA/AML industry spend, 2.9% vs. 8.7% non-interest expense differential by institution size.

[8] Conference of State Bank Supervisors, “Too Small to Scale: What 10 Years of Data Say About Community Bank Compliance Costs,” 2025

11%-15.5% payroll compliance spend at smallest institutions vs. 6%-10% at largest; direct quote on fixed overhead characterization.

[9] The Coin Republic, “JPMorgan Says Clarity Act Could Trigger Major H2 2026 Recovery,” March 2026

JPMorgan analyst characterization of CLARITY Act as structural shift unlocking sidelined institutional capital.

[10] The RWA Ledger, “America’s Legislative Architecture Wasn’t Built for This,” April 3, 2026

Full TEFRA analysis, bearer instrument problem, penalty structure, $145.1 trillion global bond market context.

[11] TradingView / CoinPedia, “CLARITY Act Update: Senate Floor Vote Expected Within 30 Days as Galaxy Research Puts Odds at 75%,” May 2026

Galaxy Research 75% passage probability, Alex Thorn August 3 signing estimate, Patrick Witt 90% quote, committee text reconciliation step before floor vote.

[12] CBIZ, “New U.S. Rules Bring Greater Clarity to Digital Assets and Tokenization,” April 2026

Tokenization as delivery method framework, dual SEC/CFTC obligations for multi-asset platforms, stablecoin settlement CFTC trigger.

[13] Morgan Lewis, “Crypto Custody Breakthrough: SEC Staff Grants Relief for Registered Funds, Advisers,” October 2025

SEC Safeguarding Rule withdrawn June 12, 2025; October 2025 no-action letter allowing state-chartered trust companies as qualified custodians under SOC Type II conditions.

[14] Hunton Andrews Kurth, “Proposed SEC Custody Rules for Crypto Assets”

Existing Custody Rule coverage limited to client funds and securities; crypto assets not covered unless also securities.

[15] FINRA, Regulation Best Interest Topic Page

Reg BI governs broker-dealer recommendations of securities transactions; FINRA Rule 2111 suitability does not apply to recommendations subject to Reg BI.

[16] CoinCheckup, “ISO 20022 Compliant Crypto,” February 2026

26.4% of banks ISO 20022 compliant as of recent reports; November 2026 compliance deadline for remaining institutions.

[17] Dotfile, “Travel Rule Compliance for Crypto: Complete KYB Guide 2025”

FATF 2025 Targeted Update: 73% of responding jurisdictions have passed Travel Rule legislation; originator and beneficiary information requirements; five-year data retention obligation.

[18] Sumsub, “Travel Rule in the US: Jurisdictional Requirements for 2025”

US Travel Rule threshold of $3,000 under BSA/FinCEN; stablecoins covered under same VASP framework; self-hosted wallet transfer requirements.

[19] CFTC Enforcement Director Ian McGinley, “Trends in the CFTC’s Recent Crypto Enforcement Actions,” May 2024

CFTC enforcement actions against Opyn ($250K), Deridex ($100K), ZeroEx ($200K), and Polymarket for operating without registration and failing to implement KYC/AML programs.

[20] Fintegration, “DeFi 2026: Opportunities, Risks and Integration Strategy Guide,” April 2026

Institutional DeFi due diligence criteria including current KYC/AML compatibility, audit logging, governance mechanisms, and verified integration capability with banking APIs and identity systems.

[21] Morgan Lewis, “Crypto Clarity: SEC and CFTC Issue Comprehensive Crypto Asset Guidance,” March 2026

March 17, 2026 joint SEC-CFTC interpretive guidance on crypto asset classification; MOU on regulatory harmonization signed March 11, 2026; 16 digital assets classified as digital commodities including Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana; agencies cannot publish formal proposed rules until CLARITY Act is enacted.

[22] Dotfile, “GENIUS Act Compliance: Complete Guide for Financial Institutions and Stablecoin Issuers,” 2026

GENIUS Act signed July 18, 2025; federal regulators required to issue implementing regulations by July 2026; law takes effect January 18, 2027 or 120 days after final rules, whichever is earlier; full compliance expected 2026-2027.

[23] Congress.gov, H.R. 3633 (119th Congress), Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, Text of Legislation https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3633/text

Supporting: House Financial Services Committee, Section-by-Section Analysis of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, July 10, 2025 https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025-07-10_-_sbs_-_clarity_act_of_2025_final.pdf

Section 106: CFTC required to establish expedited registration process within 180 days of enactment; firms must register within 90 days of that process being adopted; firms in provisional status remain subject to all statutory requirements and applicable regulations; firms may continue listing assets held prior to registration until joint SEC-CFTC rulemaking on definitions is complete. Section 110: digital commodity brokers, dealers, and exchanges designated as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act.

This matters more than I can express in an email. This coverage exists because of people like you, who value it and stay engaged long enough for it to become part of the conversation.

The RWA Ledger has many plans ahead - our 2026 roadmap includes bringing on new contributors to this platform - people whose perspectives on tokenization and financial infrastructure will make the coverage sharper and more layered than I can produce alone. The editorial calendar is getting more ambitious, and the team is starting to gain access to rooms and conversations worth being part of. We are also evaluating podcasts as an activation channel.

None of that happens without the foundation you helped build by being here first.

As the publication grows, I want the people who were here from the beginning to come with it. I’ve set up a referral program that reflects that.

• Three referrals get you early access to pieces before they publish.

• Five gets you a direct role in shaping what gets covered, meaning real input into the editorial calendar and a line to me when something deserves more attention than it’s getting.

• Fifteen gets you a direct conversation with me, and priority access to events, panels, and industry conversations The RWA Ledger is connected to, and I’ll do my best to make that meaningful.

Your referral link is below. No pressure, and no ask beyond what feels right. But if someone comes to mind, we would be grateful.

Refer a friend

Thank you for helping get the word out about The RWA Ledger!

When I first began drafting this after returning from Consensus 2026 Miami, my initial focus was narrower, centering on AI and agentic systems in financial infrastructure. I also planned to explore how cybersecurity, compliance, and risk are thematically linked - topics that were widely discussed at the conference. That original version would have been much shorter, which I imagine was a welcome relief for some. However, as with many of my writings, it has expanded beyond that initial scope.

What has taken shape in the week since that initial draft has evolved considerably. It is as much a story about leadership decisions dressed up as strategy, capital pressures reframed as efficiency, and layoffs presented as AI transformation, even when the underlying data tells a considerably more complicated story.

Subscribe now

Leadership Decisions Dressed Up as Strategy

The Speed-to-Risk Paradox

There is no single agreed-upon term for what is happening, but the pattern is documented across multiple institutional frameworks. For example, Deloitte calls it the cyberthreat paradox [40], Cisco frames it as the multiplier effect [41], and Hack The Box (HTB) calls it the automation paradox.[46] What they are all describing is the same underlying dynamic: the tools accelerating digital transformation are the same tools expanding the attack surface, and the speed advantage increasingly belongs to the attacker. For the purposes of this piece, I will use the term “speed-to-risk paradox.”

All current arguments are valid, true, and relevant. AI can perform routine risk assessments faster and more accurately than humans, helping identify vulnerabilities in ways previously impossible. In these frameworks, AI is seen as a tool to free up valuable time for teams involved in risk, compliance, regulatory functions, engineering, product development, operations, and strategy. This allows these teams to focus on adding value through innovation and efficiency, ultimately leading to better organizational outcomes - and so it comes as no surprise that the companies that successfully adopt AI will gain a clear competitive edge.

There is an often overlooked aspect of this debate that isn’t adequately addressed in the current narrative surrounding AI transformation.

What neither argument accounts for is what happens when you accelerate the technology while simultaneously eliminating the risk and compliance functions that Deloitte explicitly identifies as the prerequisite for making that acceleration safe.Hack HTB’s benchmark data confirm the other half of the same finding: despite massive gains in speed, automated systems were 70% more likely to solve routine tasks but failed to replicate the creative chaining of exploits required to breach hardened systems. A tool can find a logic override, but only a human can assess whether that override threatens a regulated data store or a public-facing portal. Speed without that human judgment is not a strategy -it serves as the foundation for the upcoming case study on catastrophic consumer data failures.

Precedence and The Prisoner’s Dilemma

The patterns here have a precedent that predates AI entirely. Accountability infrastructure did not disappear overnight. As with many things, and as I have written about before, the path to failure was created through a series of consequential but sometimes unassuming decisions, one leading to another until all dominoes topple.

Economists call a version of this the prisoner’s dilemma: the individually rational choice, when made by everyone simultaneously, produces the worst collective outcome. Each decision to cut a compliance function, reduce a risk team, or reclassify oversight as overhead is defensible in isolation, made under competitive pressure, with a plausible narrative attached. The cumulative effect only becomes visible in the collapse. This is the story of what happens when those functions are treated as friction rather than as the last line of defense. And it is happening now.

WorldCom subordinated its internal audit function to the executives it was supposed to scrutinize, resulting in an $11 billion accounting fraud that was the largest in U.S. history at the time.[38] Lehman Brothers had a risk management infrastructure that was systematically overruled by its own leadership in the years before the 2008 collapse, with the chief risk officer sidelined and the board kept in the dark on the firm’s true leverage exposure.[39]Theranos dismantled its scientific oversight in the name of disruption and kept moving until the fraud could no longer be contained.[37] And let’s not even begin to discuss the fiasco of FTX…

The most obvious explanation in each case is fraud. But the underlying story is the same in all three. It occurs when companies systematically weaken or eliminate essential internal functions responsible for oversight, compliance, risk, legal, and audit teams, often in pursuit of speed, efficiency, or innovation. This dismantling leaves the organization without the necessary structures to identify and prevent impending issues or manage catastrophic risk.

Could History Be Repeating?

The current trends in fintech, technology, and financial services show multiple well-known behavioral patterns occurring simultaneously. Recent workforce reductions across parts of the technology sector, including at firms such as Bill.com, Cloudflare, Meta, and Bolt, have increasingly coincided with broader industry efforts to prioritize AI investment, operational efficiency, and cost restructuring, including functions perceived internally as non-revenue-generating or operationally redundant during aggressive efficiency initiatives. This does not imply equivalence between these firms or historical corporate failures. However, prior cases involving companies such as WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, and Theranos have demonstrated that periods of intense market pressure, growth expectations, and narrative-driven decision-making can create environments in which institutional incentives become misaligned with long-term governance and risk management. These environments often foretell behavioral reasoning that includes:

• Moral Hazard, where decision-makers capture the short-term benefit of cutting oversight while the long-term exposure lands elsewhere.

• Regulatory Arbitrage, the calculated bet that the enforcement window will prove more forgiving than the threat window.

• Short-termism, at scale, the prioritization of near-term cost reduction and investor narrative over institutional integrity, visible in its most explicit form when a company announces a workforce reduction and a share buyback program on the same day.

Another example from history is Enron, which exhibited all three behavioral issues simultaneously: moral hazard in Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) structures that personally benefited executives while concealing corporate debt; regulatory arbitrage via mark-to-market accounting that exploited permitted practices; and short-termism driven by a compensation system that rewarded quarterly results regardless of underlying economics. The board disregarded its conflict-of-interest policies to enable this, and management was responsible for the audit. The internal whistleblower was ignored - and the rest, as they say, is history.

For the purpose of this piece, Enron serves as a highly relevant example precisely because the fraud was not the root cause. While Enron is remembered primarily as a case of extensive financial fraud, hidden debt transferred into off-balance-sheet shell companies to manufacture an illusion of profitability, mark-to-market accounting that booked future revenues before they ever materialized, criminal convictions for CEO Jeffrey Skilling and founder Kenneth Lay, and the destruction of documents by its own auditor Arthur Andersen,[42][43][44][45] it was about considerably more than the fraud itself.

Beneath the headlines was a story about the systematic removal of the internal functions whose job it was to say no, dismantled under the banner of innovation and efficiency until there was no one left to question what was happening. The board deferred to management. Internal audit was subordinated to the executives it was supposed to oversee. When the collapse came, the accountability architecture that should have surfaced it earlier had already been sidelined, exposing structural similarities that became difficult to ignore.

This moment's historical significance lies not only in the patterns themselves but also in their propensity for co-occurrence. Research after the 2008 financial crisis identified major failures in corporate governance and risk management as key causes, highlighting risks that were hiding in plain sight. A Federal Reserve study revealed that banks with better-compensated chief risk officers, indicating a more valued risk function, experienced significantly lower volatility during the crisis. The organizational structure before the crisis largely predicted its outcome. Similarly, IMF research across 59 economies showed that combining multiple behavioral signals could predict financial crisis years in advance. And while these signals are rarely invisible, they are often ignored, individually rationalized, or subordinated to short-term performance pressures until their cumulative effect makes the collapse unavoidable.

However, while the doom-and-gloom is real, not all leaders are making misguided choices or taking the same approach. In a study published last year in 2025, 82% of companies plan to boost spending on compliance technology, and the enterprise governance, risk, and compliance market is expected to grow from $72 billion to over $200 billion by 2033.[11] However, while many are increasing their investments, a significant number are not, and this article focuses on some of those organizations.

Share

Capital Mismanagement Disguised as AI Efficiency

If the behavioral patterns discussed earlier shape institutional decision-making outcomes, then the financial aspects reveal how those behaviors materialize economically. The prisoner’s dilemma helps explain how institutions can collectively reinforce outcomes that few participants would independently design. But this only persists when capital continues to reward and finance the behavior at scale. In the current AI cycle, understanding where that capital comes from, how it is financed, and what it displaces turns the governance debate from an abstract cultural concern into a measurable economic one.

Between 2022 and 2025, the combined capital expenditure of the five largest U.S. hyperscalers increased from $162 billion to $448 billion, with an average annual growth rate of 72% since mid-2023. Morgan Stanley forecasts that hyperscaler capital expenditure will surpass $800 billion in 2026 and reach $1.1 trillion in 2027, nearly matching current U.S. national defense spending.[49] In an effort to finance a portion of this, major tech companies issued $100 billion in bonds in 2026 alone, with investors seeking record-level protection against default risk through credit default swaps. Business fixed investment rose by 10.4% in Q1 2026 and accounted for three-quarters of all U.S. economic growth, despite consumer confidence falling to its lowest level since 1952, as measured by the University of Michigan.

The mechanism connecting capex to headcount decisions is not subtle. Jason Schloetzer, faculty affiliate at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, is direct: “CEOs may say these cuts are because of AI, when they really mean to say that they don’t have enough cash flow generation to fund the investments they would like, so they need to trim headcount to free up capital,” he said. For investors, he added, “reduced expenditures are boosts in profit. The reason doesn’t matter.” Evan Sohn, managing director at Revelio Labs, put it more plainly: “Payroll is being converted into capital expenditure.”[12]

’s analysis of U.S. government debt this week explored the more macroeconomic consequences of this logic:[28] the government borrows to pay the interest on prior borrowing, a self-reinforcing process that breaks only when something breaks it from outside. Firms are running the same playbook: borrow at scale to fund AI infrastructure, cut the human functions that generate near-term costs, report a leaner operating model to investors, and use the AI narrative to make both decisions appear to be a single coherent strategy.

The May 2026 layoff wave made this explicit in ways that are difficult to misread. Bill.com announced a 30% headcount reduction alongside a new $1 billion share repurchase program,[36] simultaneously cutting people and returning capital to shareholders on the same day. Cloudflare cut more than 1,100 jobs globally, roughly 20% of its workforce, citing an increase in internal AI usage of more than 600% over three months. Upwork cut approximately 25% of its workforce the same week.[35] The capital return programs announced alongside the headcount reductions make the financial logic transparent: the timing and sequencing make the relationship between workforce reductions and shareholder return initiatives difficult to overlook, not the AI buildout.

Efficiency Reductions, or Something Else…?

From an external lens, it is not always clear which functions are being reduced, compressed, redistributed, or reframed as operationally redundant during periods of aggressive efficiency restructuring. The deeper issue is not workforce reduction itself, but as cited previously, multiple firms discussed in this piece have gone through restructuring efforts tied to AI adoption, flatter operating models, or cost compression, which have coincided with reductions affecting governance-oriented functions. These have included areas spanning legal, compliance, privacy, audit, people operations, trust and safety, content moderation, risk management, and other institutional control layers responsible for escalation, accountability, operational continuity, and organizational oversight.

The optics become more visible when compared against the broader governance environment in which organizations are simultaneously operating. ISACA’s 2026 State of Privacy survey found that the median privacy team size fell from 8 to 5 in just 1 year, while 47% of technical privacy roles and 37% of legal and compliance privacy roles were already reported as understaffed.[50] 62% identified compliance pressure as a major challenge, and 52% reported increasing difficulty managing risks associated with emerging technologies.[50] Diligent’s 2026 GC Risk Index similarly found that 67% of general counsels are now spending more time on enterprise-wide risk and compliance oversight than a year earlier.[51]

AI can meaningfully augment portions of this work, particularly repetitive analysis, monitoring, administrative workflows, and other time-intensive operational tasks. The issue arises when task-level automation is misrepresented as a substitute for the institutional judgment, contextual decision-making, governance oversight, and organizational memory that those functions are meant to provide. Many of the same teams being compressed are also responsible for identifying and containing risks associated with AI deployment, operational leverage, regulatory exposure, and the debt structures that finance the current buildout. The margin for error beneath the current narrative is considerably smaller than many organizations appear willing to acknowledge.

Share The RWA Ledger

The People Reality

What the financial picture does not capture is what happens inside organizations after governance and compliance functions are cut, leaving the people who remain to absorb work they were never resourced or trained to manage.

IBM cut 8,000 employees to replace them with AI systems and later had to rehire because the automation did not meet expectations. Klarna’s AI-driven staff reductions backfired when customer service quality declined, prompting the return of human agents. Both are cautionary tales about confusing automation with governance, not about AI itself.

Reports from employees across financial services and technology sectors describe a consistent pattern: skeleton teams inheriting critical functions, executives absorbing roles outside their depth, and institutional knowledge walking out with the people who were let go.

In a recent correspondence between and Paul van der Stam, who served as an accounting manager at Bolt on a contract basis during a major restructuring period:

"Once People Ops was reduced to a single seat, the function lost its capacity to operate as a business partner. The remaining person managed a significant organizational reduction largely alone. That's a structural impossibility, not a performance failure."

On the AI framing specifically, van der Stam was direct about the gap between what was announced and what was actually deployed. "The headcount reductions preceded any meaningful AI implementation that could have absorbed the work those teams were doing. The sequencing alone contradicts the narrative."

His account is broadly consistent with recent Gartner research examining workforce reductions tied to automation initiatives at large enterprises. In a late-2025 survey of 350 global business executives at organizations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue, Gartner found that companies reporting significant ROI from AI and autonomous technology deployments reduced headcount at roughly the same rate as firms reporting only modest or negative returns.[14]The strongest outcomes were associated less with workforce reduction itself and more with reinvestment into employee training, operational redesign, and AI-enabled workflow integration.

That finding becomes more significant when viewed alongside the governance and staffing pressures discussed earlier in this piece. Across the broader operating environment, legal, compliance, privacy, audit, and risk functions are already reporting increasing workload complexity alongside resource and staffing strain.[50] [51] The contradiction is difficult to ignore: many organizations are accelerating technological complexity while simultaneously compressing portions of the institutional control layers responsible for governing it.

AI Transformation vs. AI-Washing

Major outplacement and executive coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracked 54,836 U.S. job cuts explicitly attributed to AI in 2025 alone. [12] By comparison, the firm recorded roughly 3,900 AI-related cuts in 2023, the first year the category was separately tracked, and approximately 13,000 in 2024, reflecting a rapid acceleration in AI-linked restructuring narratives over a two-year period. [12] At the same time, Challenger’s broader data showed total announced U.S. job cuts exceeding 1.2 million in 2025, the highest annual level since 2020, suggesting that AI-related restructuring is unfolding alongside a much larger environment of cost reduction, operational compression, and macroeconomic pressure.[12] Oxford Economics, reviewing the same period, capitulated that the role of AI in recent layoffs may be overstated, and that attributing cuts to AI conveys a more positive message to investors than citing weak demand or past over-hiring.[13] The pattern now has a name: AI-washing, companies reaching for the investor-friendly framing regardless of whether AI is actually performing the functions the announcement implies.

Some of those reductions are real, justified, and likely inevitable. AI can already automate portions of compliance, operations, monitoring, administrative review, and other repetitive workflows, and when implemented responsibly, those systems can improve efficiency and coverage in certain contexts. But many of the roles reduced in recent restructuring cycles were not simply repetitive administrative jobs. They involve legal review, escalation management, policy enforcement, contractor disputes, risk assessment, fraud monitoring, regulatory coordination, and operational decision-making when systems fail or unexpected events occur.

Automating part of a workflow does not eliminate the need for someone to investigate incidents, challenge bad decisions, resolve disputes, interpret regulations, approve exceptions, manage counterparties, or take responsibility when controls break down. Those responsibilities still exist even if portions of the work become automated.

Leave a comment

Governance Drift Across The Control Layer

Bolt

The Bolt story gained widespread attention after CEO Ryan Breslow spoke at Fortune’s Workplace Innovation Summit on May 19, 2026, discussing a broader restructuring effort that included a reported 30% workforce reduction and the elimination of the company’s HR function. [2]Breslow framed the changes as part of a return to a leaner “wartime” operating model centered around efficiency, startup execution, and AI-enabled productivity.

“We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist. Those problems disappeared when I let them go.”[1]

The internal Slack message to employees framed the same decision differently: leveraging AI at the core. [2] The public statement sparked a heated debate within the community and highlighted significant experiences from Bolt employees and others affected by recent mass layoffs.

Former SVP of Legal and People, Olta Andoni, publicly clarified that she had resigned after approximately one month in the role and disputed aspects of the characterization of the department's departure. The sequence of departures moved quickly. The Head of HR, Kelly Lawson Pihl, left five days after Andoni joined in January 2026. Andoni resigned in February 2026. By April 2026, Breslow cut roughly 30% of Bolt's remaining workforce, the fourth round of reductions since 2022.[2]

In subsequent conversations with , van der Stam provided attributed commentary describing what he viewed as the operational consequences of the restructuring.

According to van der Stam, the Legal and People Operations functions had been handling responsibilities extending beyond administrative coordination, including onboarding and offboarding processes, payroll continuity, contractual review, escalation management, and segregation-of-duties controls."People Ops maintained the operational infrastructure most organizations take for granted: structured onboarding and offboarding, process continuity across turnover, and adequate segregation of duties between mid-level and executive functions. The cultural dimension is harder to quantify but equally real. Monthly all-hands, team recognition, structured communication: these disappeared in sequence with each departure. By the time the function reached zero seats, there was no remaining architecture for collective accountability or basic organizational cohesion."

On the company’s broader AI framing, van der Stam argued that the operational sequencing did not align with the public narrative surrounding automation-driven replacement. According to his account, Bolt had implemented enterprise productivity tools such as Gemini Enterprise and Claude, but the underlying governance, legal, compliance, payroll, and operational responsibilities previously handled by eliminated functions had not themselves become technologically obsolete.

"Bolt had rolled out Gemini Enterprise and was ramping Claude at the team level. These are productivity augmentation tools. They assist individuals in doing their work more efficiently. They do not replace the governance, compliance, legal review, or people management functions that were eliminated. There is no prompt that handles a contractor dispute, reviews an employment agreement for legally required carve-outs, or manages a payroll remittance cutoff."

Reflecting on the broader AI narrative across the industry, van der Stam argued that even among teams actively building with advanced AI tooling, the practical consensus remained centered on augmentation rather than wholesale functional replacement.

"Even among technical thought leaders actively building with the most advanced AI tooling available today, including agentic frameworks and MCP infrastructures, the honest consensus is augmentation of scope, not elimination of function. Augmentation is the honest description. Replacement is the convenient one." - Paul van der Stam, US CPA candidate.

Whether one agrees with Bolt’s restructuring approach or not, the episode illustrates a broader institutional question increasingly surfacing across technology, fintech firms, and adjacent firms: what happens when organizations accelerate operational complexity while simultaneously reducing the internal functions responsible for governance continuity, escalation management, contractual oversight, payroll administration, and organizational accountability?

Meta

The Bolt story was the immediate surface event. Pulling that thread led back to a pattern with a longer and more consequential timeline, and Meta is where it becomes most legible and understandable at scale.

The arc begins in late 2022 and runs through this week. During Zuckerberg’s declared Year of Efficiency, Meta ended a six-month fact-checking project, terminated contracts with approximately 200 content moderators in January 2023, and made broader reductions to its privacy and integrity teams. It also cut at least 16 members of Instagram’s well-being group, a team responsible for tracking and reducing harms to users - specifically teenagers - including harassment, unwanted sexual advances, and exposure to self-harm content, along with more than 100 positions related to trust, integrity, and responsibility across the company.[5] Meta said the function had been folded into its broader content integrity team. Sources familiar with the matter told CNBC that, following the layoffs, the company had fewer people working on those issues, regardless of the function's name. It is worth noting that Meta declined to provide historical Trust and Safety staffing data to the Senate Judiciary Committee when directly asked.

On October 23rd, 2025, two separate memos were sent simultaneously within Meta. Chief AI officer Alexandr Wang announced 600 cuts to the Superintelligence Labs AI division, framing them as a move to reduce bureaucracy and speed up product development. On the same day, in a separate communication, Chief Compliance and Privacy Officer, Michel Protti, notified more than 100 employees in the risk organization that their positions were being eliminated.[3] The risk organization cuts were not part of the AI Labs restructuring - they were a parallel action targeting a different function entirely. The company was shifting to automated compliance review, replacing the team built specifically in response to its $5 billion FTC settlement over Cambridge Analytica. Under the prior system, product updates required sign-off from dedicated risk assessors before reaching billions of users. Under the new model, engineers assess their own risk. Zvika Krieger, former director of responsible innovation at Meta, described what that shift means in practice: most product managers and engineers are not privacy experts, it is not the focus of their job, and it is not what they are incentivized to prioritize.[4]

In March 2026, Meta published a blog post framing the redesigned system as progress, describing manual processes as the fallback, not the default.[6] The risk team Meta retired had existed because regulators had already decided, backed by a $5 billion FTC fine, that the company could not be trusted to assess its own compliance.

The consequence arrived the same month. In mid-March 2026, an internal AI agent at Meta triggered a Sev-1 security incident after a colleague acted on the agent’s recommendation and inadvertently broadened access permissions, exposing sensitive company and user data to engineers without proper clearance for roughly two hours.[33] The agent had passed all identity checks and carried valid credentials. Security assessors identified the root cause as an AI agent operating with over-privileged access and insufficient human oversight. The incident occurred four months after the risk organization responsible for evaluating exactly this category of exposure was eliminated. The questions those people would have asked were no longer being asked.

Then, on May 20th, 2026, Meta notified roughly 8,000 employees via email at 4 am local time that they were being laid off, approximately 10% of its global workforce.[7] Of those, approximately 7,000 are being redeployed into AI-focused teams, including the Agent Transformation Accelerator, units explicitly tasked with building autonomous AI agents to handle tasks previously managed by human staff. This means the net reduction is roughly 1,000 new exits after reassignment, with 6,000 additional open roles simultaneously frozen. Meta raised its full-year 2026 capital expenditure guidance to between $125 billion and $145 billion following its Q1 earnings, a 73% increase over its 2025 actual spend of $72.2 billion, and more than it spent in 2024 and 2025 combined.[48] Unlike Alphabet and Amazon, which reported AI-driven cloud revenue growth alongside their spending, Meta has no AI-specific revenue line. The infrastructure buildout is being financed entirely against advertising income.

The period from 2022 to May 2026 reflects more than just a series of restructuring choices; instead, it represents a deliberate strategic move: the belief that governance, safety, and compliance functions, developed in response to regulatory demands and public oversight, can ultimately be replaced by automation. Additionally, the remaining human workforce can be reskilled to develop the systems that might eventually take over their roles.

Cloudflare

The Cloudflare story surfaced the same week as Consensus and offers something that the Bolt and Meta cases do not: a CEO who publicly named the target category and explained the reasoning in writing, making it the clearest articulation of the pattern this section documents.

On May 7th, 2026, Cloudflare announced it was cutting approximately 20% of its workforce, more than 1,100 employees, despite reporting record quarterly revenue of $639.8 million the same day.[10] Two weeks later, CEO Matthew Prince published a Wall Street Journal opinion piece explaining exactly which jobs were eliminated and why. Drawing on Peter Drucker’s 1954 management framework, Prince divided his workforce into three categories: builders, who develop products; sellers, who generate revenue; and what he called “measurers.”[52] He defined measurers as employees in middle management, finance, legal review, internal auditing, compliance, and operations. Those were the people who went first.[53]

Prince’s argument was direct: AI systems can now perform the measurer function with greater precision than humans, making the category structurally obsolete. The claim is worth examining carefully on its own terms, because Cloudflare is not a generic tech company. It is a cybersecurity firm. Its commercial purpose is protecting organizations from exactly the categories of threat this piece documents later: AI-assisted exploitation, prompt injection, social engineering, and unauthorized access. The functions that Prince dismissed as easily replaceable by AI and subsequently eliminated were, in fact, the independent judgment layer that provided oversight and the capacity to evaluate whether the organization's actions were legal, sustainable, and within appropriate bounds. This judgment layer could also act on that evaluation, even when the answer was inconvenient.

Prince's May 22nd Wall Street Journal op-ed positioned the cuts as a proactive strategy rather than financial pressure, a forward-looking restructuring decision by a profitable company anticipating what AI will make possible. It is also the most articulate public version of the same reasoning visible at Bolt and Meta, where governance and compliance functions were reduced under efficiency- or innovation-based narratives before the consequences of their absence became apparent.

At Bolt, the elimination of HR operations left no architecture to review contract modifications before they went out. At Meta, the risk organization was gone four months before an AI agent with overprivileged access triggered a Sev-1 incident that exposed sensitive data company-wide for two hours, with no one left to ask whether the exposure had occurred. To say that humans, especially those serving in oversight functions, are redundant in nature minimizes their role, function, and purpose as a stopgap, and the institutional record of what happens when it is removed is no longer there.

Share

Speed Without Oversight Is Not a Strategy

Speed and scale are not, on their own, a strategy. They are amplifiers. When the underlying governance is strong, AI can enhance judgment, strengthen controls, and expand what responsible organizations can achieve. When that governance is hollowed out, the same technology magnifies blind spots, accelerates bad decisions, and pushes risk through the system faster than anyone can catch.

That is the real fault line emerging beneath the current AI narrative. Not whether companies adopt AI, but who they remove from the room in order to fund it - and what questions stop getting asked when they do.

Enron, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom, and others are remembered for the moment the fraud was revealed, not for the quieter years when oversight was sidelined, internal skeptics were sidelined, and control functions were treated as a source of friction. By the time the headlines arrived, the architecture that could have prevented collapse had been dismantled for years.

The pattern showing up today is not identical, but it is recognizable. Firms are simultaneously increasing technological complexity and operational leverage through AI and automation, compressing or eliminating legal, compliance, risk, privacy, people operations, and audit functions; framing the resulting headcount reductions as “AI transformation” or “efficiency,” even when the systems to safely absorb that work do not yet exist.

This is not primarily an AI story. It is a governance story playing out in an AI-shaped environment. For leaders who are genuinely pro-innovation and pro-speed, the question is not whether to adopt AI, that debate is already over. The questions that matter now are governance questions:

Who, inside your organization, has both the mandate and the independence to say no when an AI system recommends the fastest path that is also the most dangerous? When an autonomous agent touches regulated data, customer funds, or critical infrastructure, who is accountable for determining what level of access is acceptable? If a regulator, counterparty, or customer asks whether your public narrative about AI and risk matches operational reality, who owns that answer, and what information do they actually have?

The organizations that navigate this transition well will not be the ones that cut the most people or ship the most agents. They will be the ones who treat governance, risk, compliance, and people operations as design constraints of the system, not as line items to be swapped out for infrastructure spend.

AI will not save institutions from the consequences of eroding their own accountability architecture. It will simply bring those consequences forward in time.

The bet being placed right now, often implicitly, often dressed up as efficiency, is whether accelerated complexity can safely coexist with diminished oversight. History has given a clear answer to earlier versions of that bet. The only open question is which firms choose to treat that history as a warning, and which decide to learn the lesson the hard way.

Marina Mendenhall-Valente is the Founder and Principal of and Founding Treasurer of the AWIC San Francisco Chapter. She writes at the intersection of tokenization, financial infrastructure, and institutional adoption.

Sources

1. Ella Chakarian, “Bolt CEO Says Firing His HR Team Made the Company’s Problems Disappear,” Fast Company, May 20, 2026

2. “Bolt CEO Says He Let Go of His Entire HR Team for Creating Problems That Didn’t Exist,” Fortune, May 19, 2026

3. “Meta Replacing Humans with AI for FTC-Mandated Privacy Reviews,” CNBC, October 23, 2025

4. “Meta Plans to Replace Humans with AI to Assess Privacy and Societal Risks,” NPR, May 31, 2025

5. “Tech Layoffs Ravage the Teams That Fight Online Misinformation and Hate Speech,” CNBC, May 26, 2023

6. “How AI Is Ushering in the Next Era of Risk Review at Meta,” Meta Newsroom, March 2026

7. “Meta Layoffs 2026: 8,000 Jobs Cut in AI Restructuring,” Yahoo Finance, May 2026

8. “Fed Ends Wells Fargo Enforcement Order After Decade of Reforms,” CEFPro, March 2026

9. Catherine Leffert, “Wells Fargo Sheds Fourth Consent Order in a Month,” American Banker, February 14, 2025

10. “Cloudflare Announces More Than 1,100 Job Cuts Amid Growing AI-Driven Layoff Trend,” Yahoo Finance, May 2026

11. “25 Critical Stats Every Chief Compliance Officer Needs to Know in 2025,” Compliance & Risks, 2025

12. “The AI Layoffs Narrative: Real Transformation, or Scapegoat?” SHRM, May 2026

13. “AI Is Becoming a Go-To Reason for Layoffs — But Is It Actually Replacing Workers?” Sherwood News, February 2026

14. “AI-Driven Layoffs Aren’t Making Business Sense,” CIO, May 2026

15. “Corporate Debt Market Outlook in a Transforming World,” OECD Global Debt Report 2026, March 2026

16. “Tech IPO Hype Gets Drowned Out by Prospect of $1 Trillion in Debt Sales,” CNBC, February 12, 2026

17. “The AI Debt Deluge Hitting Bond Markets,” M&G Investments, March 2026

18. “Colorado Joins States Favoring AI Disclosure Over Audit Mandates,” Bloomberg Law, May 2026

19. “CertiK on Why AI Is Making Crypto Security More Urgent,” Blockster, May 2026

20. “$285 Million Drift Hack Traced to Six-Month DPRK Social Engineering Operation,” The Hacker News, April 6, 2026

21. “North Korea Stole 76% of All Crypto Hack Value in 2026 — With Just Two Attacks,” TRM Labs, April 2026

22. “76% of All Crypto Stolen in 2026 Is Now in North Korea,” Dark Reading, May 2026

23. “Researchers Warn Malicious AI Agent Routers Can Steal Crypto in New Attack Vector,” CoinSpeaker, April 13, 2026

24. “Encoded Prompt Injection: Why LLM Guardrails Are at the Wrong Layer,” Security Boulevard, May 7, 2026

25. “AI Agents Move Beyond Demos: Payments and Security Take Center Stage,” DailyCoin, April 7, 2026

26. AWIC, “Official Statement on the Consensus 2026 After-Party and the Path Forward,” May 15, 2026

27. “Consensus 2026 Miami — Employer Report,” consensus2026report.netlify.app, updated May 20, 2026

28. Noah Smith, “America Is Heading for a Debtpocalypse,” Noahpinion, May 23, 2026

29. Jeff John Roberts, “The Crypto Industry Is Obsessed With Conferences. The Vibe at Them Is Changing,” Fortune, May 4, 2026

30. Vicky Ge Huang, “Out With the Lamborghinis, In With the Suits: The Changing Face of Cryptoland,” Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026

31. “Ripple’s Garlinghouse at Consensus 2026 Declares a ‘Big Positive Shift’ for Crypto,” HedgeCo.net, May 7, 2026

32. Nicholet R., “Wall Street’s Crypto Migration Turns Real, Industry Leaders Say at Consensus Miami,” Crypto Economy, May 6, 2026

33. “Two Hours, Zero Control: How a Meta AI Agent Sparked a Major Data Leak,” Trending Topics / The Information, March 2026

34. Noah Smith, “AI Has the Worst Sales Pitch I’ve Ever Seen,” Noahpinion, March 26, 2026

35. “Layoffs Accelerate in May 2026 as Firms Restructure Around AI,” Yahoo Finance, May 2026

36. “BILL Reports Q3 FY2026 Financial Results: 30% Headcount Reduction and $1B Share Repurchase Program,” StockTitan / BILL 8-K, May 2026

37. “POV: Justice Served for Elizabeth Holmes, But What About Theranos’s Board?” Fast Company, June 2023

38. “WorldCom’s $11B Fraud: The Scandal That Changed Business,” CEO Today Magazine, March 2025

39. Madelyn Antoncic interview, “The Good Reasons Why Lehman Failed,” Knowledge at Wharton, September 2018

40. Nancy Albinson and Deborah Golden, “Use Speed to Outpace the Cyberthreat Paradox,” Deloitte / Wall Street Journal, 2019

41. Aruna Ravichandran, “The Multiplier Effect: Solving the AI Paradox in 2026,” Cisco Blogs, April 2, 2026

42. “Enron Scandal Summary,” Investopedia

43. “The Enron Business Tactics That Still Haunt Us,” Washington Post, December 2, 2021

44. “Enron Scandal,” Britannica

45. “More Than 20 Years After the Enron Scandal, What Have We Learned?” Colorado State University, Biz Source

46. Dr. Makelaris, “The Automation Paradox: A New Era of Systemic Risk,” Hack The Box Research Labs, April 24, 2026

47. “INTERPOL Report Warns of Increasingly Sophisticated Global Financial Fraud Threat,” INTERPOL, March 16, 2026

48. “Meta’s ‘AI Efficiency Push’ Is Capex Discipline Dressed in Propaganda,” ainvest, May 19, 2026

49. Nicholas Sargen, “AI Capital Spending Is Offsetting Soft Consumer Spending — For Now,” The Hill, May 22, 2026

50. ISACA, “New ISACA Study: Privacy Teams Are Shrinking, Increasingly Stressed,” ISACA, January 15, 2026

51. Jordan Gingrich-Hadley, “Two-Thirds of General Counsels Report Rising Risk and Compliance Workloads,” Diligent, April 21, 2026

52. Matthew Prince, “AI Is Replacing the Measurers,” summarized in Brian Contreras, “The Real Reason Cloudflare Just Laid Off 20 Percent of Its Staff,” Inc., May 21, 2026

53. “Cloudflare Posted Record Revenue, Then Cut 20% of Its Workforce,” Fortune, May 21, 2026

54. “Cloudflare CEO Prince Says Builders and Sellers Are Safe but AI Is Coming for the Measurers,” The Decoder, May 2026

Touching down in Miami for Consensus this year, I had a specific set of questions in mind, several of which would never be answered on the main stage. My focus coming in was not whether tokenization works. We are, quite frankly, past that. The question I kept returning to was whether tokenization is actually deployable at scale inside regulated institutions operating under real cost, compliance, and operational constraints, and not just at the JPMorgans and Franklin Templetons of the world. I came in holding particular curiosity for what this transition looks like for regional banks and firms with smaller footprints, the ones doing a very different calculation than the institutions whose names anchor every headline.

I wanted to learn more about the experiences of those who have crossed the pilot-to-production chasm and what it cost them to get there. Which asset classes are moving and which are stalled, and why? How are firms approaching the conversation about risk profiling, and what frameworks are they using to evaluate whether a tokenization initiative is viable before committing significant capital? Where are the legal and compliance frameworks still too thin to support deployment, and what happens to firms that move anyway? These are not questions you bring to a keynote. Nobody is going to answer them from a stage sponsored by the people still trying to sell you the vision.

The numbers, the institutional names, and notably the language had shifted. "Pilot" was out. "Production" was in. And yet, what does "pilot" even mean in the context of developing and deploying in rigorous institutional settings, without it seemingly falling into the special projects category and being long-forgotten within a six- to twelve-month window? I have seen that happen. More than once. That question lingered across nearly every side conversation I had, from sessions among Wynwood, Surfcomber, Sagamore, and the Miami Beach Convention Center, into evenings at SoHo House, Casa Tua, and elsewhere throughout my nearly week-long stint. What I kept hearing was something considerably more nuanced than the main stage was prepared to reckon with.

For firms outside the JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Franklin Templeton tier of production capacity, moving tokenization pilots into production operations has not offered a straightforward path to meaningfully predictable outcomes. That is partly about regulation, but equally about cost, and the realities of both have proven harder to model than early projections suggested. The question had been answered for some institutions, asset classes, on some rails, but many others face delays in strategies, budgets, and timing expectations due to fluctuating market conditions and the need for regulatory clarity.

My hope for this article is to explore the gap between the narrative presented on the main stage and the reality experienced by practitioners. Furthermore, I hope it will provide a fitting starting point for a five-part Consensus recap, as other topics - such as agentic commerce, security concerns, legislative insights, and compliance issues - depend on whether the infrastructure layer is truly ready for production or still perceived as unprepared by an increasingly skeptical audience.

A note on sources before we go further

Not every question I brought to Miami got answered in Miami. Some of the most important threads surfaced in conversations that required external research, practitioner documentation, and regulatory guidance, all of which were published without much fanfare. What follows draws on both what I heard consistently across Consensus sessions and side rooms, and what further investigation after the week confirmed. Where a finding comes from outside Consensus, specifically, I have noted the source.

Subscribe now

The Numbers Are Real. So Is the Gap.

What The Production Data Actually Shows

One of the main questions the industry spent 2022 to 2024 debating, whether institutional tokenization would move from proof-of-concept to production, has been answered, at least partially.

A year ago, Citi’s tokenized deposit system was handling millions. “Now we’re moving billions,” said Ryan Rugg, Global Head of Digital Assets for Citi’s treasury and trade solutions unit, speaking at Consensus Miami. [1] The demand, she said, is coming from clients who want to move money around the clock, not just during banking hours. JPMorgan’s Kinexys platform has processed more than $1 trillion in transactions, according to Kara Kennedy, who leads market development for the bank’s digital assets unit, speaking from the same panel [1], a figure JPMorgan’s own platform documentation puts higher, at $1.5 trillion since inception, with more than $2 billion processed daily. [2]

The broader market confirms the direction. As of April 2026:

• Total tokenized real-world assets across public chains reached approximately $441 billion in represented asset value, with tokenized US Treasuries leading by category and private credit growing fastest in percentage terms. The represented asset value reflects the total capital committed to tokenized structures, including institutional vehicles that are not yet fully reflected in on-chain data. The on-chain distributed figure, which is actively traded and settled on-chain, stood at approximately $27.65 billion over the same period [3]

• BlackRock’s BUIDL fund holds approximately $2.58 billion in assets under management across eight blockchains, with Moody’s issuing a AAA-mf rating to the fund in May 2026, the first time a tokenized fund on Ethereum has received that designation [4]

• Franklin Templeton’s BENJI tokenized fund suite has grown to approximately $1.98 billion in assets under management as of April 29, 2026, across eight blockchain networks [5]

• Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Charles Schwab, Mastercard, BlackRock, and Goldman Sachs all sent representatives to Consensus Miami, not to explore the concept but to work through the operational questions of how [6]

If the proof was ever in the pilot, the numbers are now the tell. For institutions with the balance sheet to absorb the cost and the appetite to hold through the risk, the proof-of-concept debate is largely over.

But Most Of The Industry Is Still Spinning

Yuval Rooz, Chief Executive of Digital Asset and Co-Founder of the Canton Network, said something in March that was still circulating at Consensus: “People have assigned a lot of value to these networks based on what they say they’ll become. But when you look at how much actual business they’re doing, there’s a massive disconnect.”[7]

That quote landed differently when it came from the person running the network. It is not a critic talking. It is the founder of one of the most institutionally credentialed blockchain platforms in the world, acknowledging, on the record, that the gap between what has been promised and what is actually being processed is real.

Writing in Forbes ahead of Consensus, Boaz Sobrado was the first to quantify what sits behind that admission at the industry level. Canton claims more than 600 participating institutions and around $6 trillion in processed assets. Almost all of that volume comes from a single client, Broadridge's Distributed Ledger Repo platform, which, according to Rooz, processes approximately $400 billion in repo transactions daily. [7] Strip Broadridge out, and the network's actual production breadth looks considerably thinner than the headline figure suggests. What reads as institutional scale is, at this point, largely one client relationship reflected across a very large number. [8]

That pattern is not unique to Canton. Industry analysts estimate that only a fraction of large enterprise blockchain pilots have reached production, leaving most institutions in what consultants now openly call "pilot purgatory." [8] The phrase kept coming up at Consensus, not from critics but from practitioners. The picture those conversations painted was consistent: a firm completes a successful proof of concept, secures internal sponsorship, and then enters a multi-year process of compliance review, legal opinion, legacy system integration, risk committee sign-off, and regulatory engagement, any one of which can stall or kill the deployment. The technology clears the bar. The organizational and regulatory infrastructure around it frequently does not, at least not on any timeline the original pilot budget anticipated.

And that is before we talk about who is realistically at the table. JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Citi can absorb the cost of running parallel infrastructure during a multi-year migration. Regional banks, community banks, and smaller commercial institutions operate on a very different margin structure. For them, the question is not whether tokenization is directionally correct. It is about whether the internal resource requirement, the compliance overhead, the technology spend, and the timeline to any measurable return make sense relative to everything else competing for the same budget. For most, the honest answer right now is no, and that is not a failure of vision. It is a rational reading of the numbers.

This raises the question that the main stage did not spend much time on. How does a mid-sized institution evaluate whether a tokenization initiative is viable before committing significant capital? What does a risk framework actually look like when the data infrastructure to support it is still being built? And who bears the cost when a firm moves ahead without one? EY has published a six-pillar due diligence framework for tokenized asset risk, and Particula has completed more than 200 risk assessments across tokenized assets using its PDARF methodology. [16] [17] Both identify the same primary constraint: data availability. The lack of reliable, high-quality data makes structured due diligence and ongoing monitoring difficult, and limited visibility into product lifecycles and asset modifications further complicates matters. Firms moving ahead without that infrastructure are accepting more model risk than their risk committees may realize, and in a regulated environment, that gap does not stay invisible indefinitely.

Leave a comment

The Production Numbers and the Purgatory Critique: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Different Parts Of The Same Transition

This is where most coverage of Consensus missed the texture entirely. The assets that have made it to production share a specific profile:

• Simple in structure and familiar in legal treatment

• Operated by institutions with existing regulatory relationships

• Settled on permissioned or hybrid rails that do not require regulators to engage with novel legal questions

BlackRock BUIDL works because it is a money market fund with a blockchain wrapper, not because it resolved the hard questions about tokenized equity settlement or cross-border asset transfer. [7] The assets still stuck in purgatory are structurally different in each case. In this case, tokenized treasuries entered production because they are familiar to institutional investors, carry minimal credit risk, and generate yield that can be delivered programmatically through smart contracts. [18] Private credit presents a harder problem: the asset class has always suffered from manual servicing, opaque valuations, and minimal secondary liquidity, and while tokenization addresses each of those frictions in theory, the data and legal infrastructure to make it work in practice is still being assembled. Real estate is harder still, with jurisdictional variability in property law making cross-border tokenized structures legally fragile in ways that do not surface in pilot conditions but become very visible when a holder tries to exit.

There is a related, underreported dimension of the illiquidity problem that circulated in practitioner conversations ahead of and during Consensus week. Tokenizing an illiquid asset does not make it liquid. That sounds obvious, but it is not how the technology is routinely described. “I think there’s still this idea that tokenizing something illiquid will somehow magically make it a liquid asset, which is just not true,” said Oya Celiktemur, Ondo Finance’s sales director for EMEA, speaking at Paris Blockchain Week in April. [21] The data confirms the point: tokenized real estate grew from approximately $35 million to $296 million in on-chain distributed value in the year to April 2026, strong percentage growth, but still a fraction of a market dominated by Treasuries and money market funds that were already liquid before they were tokenized.

Many institutional-grade tokens in less-liquid asset categories have fewer than ten active wallet addresses per month. [22]

There is also an interoperability dimension that received almost no main-stage coverage but came up consistently in practitioner conversations. Asset-backed tokens issued on one network today often cannot move easily to another, creating fragmentation and limiting secondary market depth in ways that are invisible at the point of issuance. [19] Bridges between regulated bank chains and public networks have historically been the most exploited surface in crypto infrastructure, yet most discussions of tokenization deployment treat interoperability as a future problem rather than a present one. For institutions building on these rails now, it is already a present one. And sitting underneath the interoperability problem is a compliance layer that surfaced pointedly at the AWIC, VerifyVASP, BDO, and Hedera side panel, “Trust Under Pressure: Risk, Regulation, and the Future of Crypto Compliance,” held at the Miami Beach Women’s Club during Consensus week: when tokenized assets move across networks and counterparties, the Travel Rule obligation to transmit originator and beneficiary data travels with them, and the infrastructure to fulfill that obligation in a multi-chain, multi-jurisdiction environment is, at best, inconsistently built. That is a piece this publication will return to shortly, because the gap between what the technology can do and what compliance requires at the point of transfer is wider than most deployment conversations acknowledge.

What The IMF Said That Most Glossed Over

The IMF's April 2026 note on tokenized finance, authored by Tobias Adrian, Financial Counselor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department, argued that tokenization constitutes a fundamental reconfiguration of how trust, settlement, and risk management are organized across the global financial system, not a marginal efficiency improvement to existing infrastructure. [3] When the IMF uses language like that, it is worth pausing on.

One piece of regulatory progress that did not get the attention it deserved: in March 2026, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC jointly clarified that an eligible tokenized security receives the same regulatory capital treatment as its non-tokenized equivalent. [20] Before that guidance, some institutions were treating tokenized versions of familiar instruments as novel assets with uncertain capital treatment, a real deterrent to deployment that is now formally removed. That changes the risk calculus for regulated institutions in ways that have not yet fully translated into deployment timelines, and it is the kind of development that compounds gradually rather than all at once.

A Note On The Architecture Critics

Not everyone reading these developments arrives at the same conclusions about what they mean. Some observers, including technically fluent analysts worth taking seriously, look at the same DTCC architecture, the same root wallet authority, the same compliance-aware protocol requirements, and see not an efficiency upgrade but a programmable compliance envelope that converts ownership into conditional permission. [8] That reading warrants engagement rather than dismissal, and this publication will return to it as the DTCC service moves toward its July limited-production launch and October full launch. The operational implications for how tokenized entitlements actually behave under stress, when freeze authority gets used, when LedgerScan constitutes the official record over the public chain, are questions the industry has not fully answered in public.

For now, the production story is real. The architectural questions it raises are also real. Both things are true.

Share

The Build-versus-Partner Decision Is Already Being Made

Not Every Firm Will Build Its Own Rails, And That Is Fine

The production numbers belong to a specific tier of institution, one with the legal resources, engineering capacity, regulatory relationships, and balance sheet to build and maintain proprietary blockchain infrastructure. For most firms, that profile does not apply. Pretending otherwise is one of the quieter sources of inertia in the pilot purgatory problem.

Core platform upgrades are expensive in ways that do not show up cleanly in a pilot budget. The shift from T+2 to atomic settlement is not a speed improvement bolted onto existing infrastructure. It is a structural change in which every downstream obligation comes due: compliance verification, collateral posting, counterparty confirmation, and liquidity provision. In a T+2 cycle, those obligations are distributed across a settlement window that gives firms time to net positions, source liquidity, and resolve exceptions. Atomic settlement collapses that window entirely. Everything managed during the float must now be pre-positioned or instantly available. [9] For firms whose back-office infrastructure was built around T+1 or T+2 assumptions, the gap between what tokenized settlement promises and what their operational stack can actually support is a real constraint, not a future consideration.

That constraint is driving a natural market response: firms that cannot build are looking for partners who can bring compliant, complementary solutions to their existing infrastructure rather than requiring them to replace it.

The White Label Layer Has Matured

The partnership and white-label layer of the tokenization market has developed considerably in the past eighteen months. The three most institutionally credible options on the RWA tokenization side:

• Securitize remains the US institutional benchmark, as the first SEC-registered transfer agent for digital asset securities, with compliance infrastructure covering investor onboarding, transfer agent functions, and regulated secondary market access [10]

• Tokeny, majority-owned by Apex Group and operating under the ERC-3643 standard, has tokenized over $32 billion across its network and covers compliance across more than 180 jurisdictions, making it the strongest option where MiCA or cross-border EU exposure drives the decision [11]

• Brickken, which was on the ground at Consensus and presented at PitchFest, offers a multi-asset white-label platform with built-in KYC, AML, and lifecycle management across equity, debt, funds, and private credit [12]

On the stablecoin side, where a growing number of institutional firms are beginning their on-chain journey rather than jumping directly to tokenized securities, ShredPay is one example of a firm building compliant infrastructure for institutional stablecoin holdings and payment flows, worth watching as The GENIUS Act implementation takes shape. [23]

Taxonomy Matters More Than Most Due Diligence Processes Acknowledge

The framework covered in On the Ledger No. 001, drawing on Sandy Kaul’s three-category structure of synthetic exposure tokens, digitally native structures, and digital twin models [13], remains the right starting point for understanding what you actually own and how your position settles. But it is worth noting that the passage of the CLARITY Act through the Senate Banking Committee has made the taxonomy question more concrete rather than more abstract. The jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, the classification framework for novel token structures, and the legal treatment of tokenized financial instruments are no longer purely theoretical. They are being answered by statute.

The Due Diligence Question Firms are Not Asking Often Enough

Due diligence on white-label and partnership solutions is not a one-time exercise. The compliance landscape these platforms operate within is actively being written, and a platform that was the right fit under the pre-CLARITY regulatory posture may not remain so once implementing regulations arrive. Before selecting a tokenization partner, firms should be pressure-testing on at least three dimensions:

• Regulatory Durability: Does the platform have the regulatory relationships and technical architecture to stay compliant as the statutory framework evolves, not just as it stands today?

• Jurisdictional Fit: Is the platform’s compliance model built for the specific asset class, investor base, and regulatory regime you are operating in, or is it a general solution being applied to a specific problem?

• Switching Cost Realism: What does mid-deployment migration actually look like if the platform cannot adapt? The cost of switching infrastructure partners is high. The cost of deploying on a platform that cannot keep pace with the statutory framework is higher. [14]

  Share The RWA Ledger

The Hard Truth Nobody Is Marketing To You

Writing about tokenization without acknowledging the pilot purgatory problem, the liquidity illusion, the compliance gaps, and the cost realities is not analysis. It is marketing, and the industry has plenty of that.

For technology, operations, and product leaders at commercial banks, the question this piece is really asking is whether your internal roadmap reflects the infrastructure as it actually exists or the infrastructure as it has been described to you. Those are not the same thing, and the distance between them tends to surface well after budget approval and well outside the OKR review cycle. Baker McKenzie’s analysis of current tokenization implementations found that costs remain prohibitive for all but the largest institutions and that scale will only be achieved when numerous market players transact on common or interconnected platforms, neither of which exists at the level assumed by today's pilots. [24] The risk-profiling data gap rarely appears in pilot proposals. And most institutions do not yet have the internal resources to provide the kind of decisive, informed evaluation that a decision of this complexity actually requires. Following the news, understanding the narrative, and even believing in the direction, none of that fully equips a team to evaluate deployment decisions in a space where the distance between vendor marketing and operational reality is still this wide.

When Language Gets Blurry Fast

Trusting a vendor to fill that gap, with limited due diligence, in a space you are not fully equipped to evaluate, is a different kind of risk than the ones showing up in your risk register. I have seen well-intentioned initiatives stall, be reassigned, or be canceled entirely, and produce findings that nobody anticipated. The cause is rarely the technology. In equal measure, the fate of these projects is determined by the architecture and the firms supporting their implementation. The decision architecture around tokenization at most institutions has not yet been built to handle the complexity of what is actually being decided. And in a space where proof of concept has become proof of everything, proof of trust is the one thing you still have to earn the hard way.

The Auditors Do Not Care About Your Pitch Deck

For legal, risk, and compliance professionals, the nuance that matters most is the one the main stage consistently flattens. Not all tokenized assets carry the same ownership structure, settlement finality, or counterparty exposure. A synthetic exposure token, a digitally native structure, and a digital twin model are not interchangeable descriptions of the same thing. The model determines the failure mode, and the failure mode determines where liability lands. The Celsius collapse is a perfect example where the core failure was not technological but structural: 600,000 users believed they held assets while the bankruptcy court found they had transferred full legal title under the Terms of Use, becoming unsecured creditors against an estate with a $1.3 billion hole. The gap between on-chain presentation and off-chain legal reality only became visible after withdrawals were frozen, and that gap is precisely what the architecture critics are asking about when they raise the DTCC root wallet authority and the LedgerScan official record question. It deserves a precise answer, not a distancing statement.

For the startups building infrastructure for these environments, the signal from Consensus was consistent: the institutions that matter are no longer asking whether tokenization is real. They are asking who can deliver compliant, auditable, integration-ready infrastructure that survives a legal opinion and a risk committee simultaneously. That is a narrower market than the one being described on most conference stages, and it is more valuable.

The constraints are real and worth naming plainly. The data infrastructure required for rigorous risk assessment does not yet exist at scale. For regional banks and smaller commercial institutions operating on fundamentally different margin structures than JPMorgan and BlackRock, the rational calculation looks very different, and pretending otherwise is its own form of distortion.

But there is a difference between a firm that has done that calculation honestly and a firm using complexity as a permanent justification for not doing it at all. The infrastructure being built right now is not going to pause. The settlement rails, the custody standards, the compliance architecture, the distribution relationships in the asset classes that actually matter for the next phase of this market, those are being defined now, by the firms that showed up. By the time the picture is fully clear, the foundation will already belong to someone.

The firms that navigate this transition well will be the ones that hold both realities at once: the production story is real, and the hard work of getting there has barely begun for most of the industry.

The ones deferring that work are not avoiding the question. They are accumulating it, with interest.

Part Two covers the security fallout from agentic AI and what the practitioner conversations at Consensus actually revealed about the threat environment. Coming this week.

Sources

[1] CoinDesk, “Tokenization Won’t Disrupt Banking Rails But Improve Them, Wall Street Executives Say,” May 5, 2026.

[2] J.P. Morgan, “Introducing Kinexys,” jpmorgan.com.

[3] FinTech Weekly, “What Is Real-World Asset Tokenization? The IMF Just Called It a Structural Reconfiguration,” April 6, 2026.

[4] Bitcoin.com News, “BlackRock’s Onchain BUIDL Fund Secures Top AAA-mf Rating From Moody’s,” May 13, 2026.

[5] Stellar Development Foundation, “Franklin Templeton, Stellar Development Foundation Mark Five Years of BENJI,” April 29, 2026.

[6] Varmeta, “Consensus Miami 2026: The Future of On-Chain Finance and Its Impact,” May 11, 2026.

[7] Forbes / Boaz Sobrado, “’Massive Disconnect’: Wall Street’s Blockchain Boom Hits a Wall,” May 4, 2026.

[8] Courtenay Turner, “The Tokenization Chokepoint,” Substack, May 4, 2026.

[9] The RWA Ledger, “On the Ledger No. 002: Eighteen Months of Lobbying, Legislation, Closed Rooms, and Then a Shareholder Letter,” April 14, 2026.

[10] Pintu News, “8 Best RWA Tokenization White Label Platforms 2026,” March 2026.

[11]The Block, "Apex Group Unit Tokeny Taps Polygon for Interoperable Tokenization Platform T-REX Ledger," March 19, 2026.

[12] CoinGape, “8 Best White Label RWA Tokenization Platform Development Companies,” 2026.

[13] The RWA Ledger, “On the Ledger No. 001: What You Actually Own When You Own a Tokenized Asset,” 2026.

[14] The RWA Ledger, “Congress Put Tokenization on the Record. The Hard Architecture Questions Are Still Unanswered,” March 28, 2026.

[15] Fireblocks, “The Executive’s Guide to Tokenization in 2026,” May 2026.

[16] EY, “Token Due Diligence: A Structured Approach to Digital Asset Risk,” 2026.

[17] Particula, “Token Risk Assessment: PDARF Methodology,” 2026.

[18] Finextra / Muhammad Qasim, “Tokenized Real-World Assets: Reading the 2026 Numbers Behind the Headline Growth,” May 2026.

[19] InvestaX, “Real World Asset Tokenization: Trends and Outlook for 2026,” May 2026.

[20] Zeeve, “Institutional Tokenization in 2026: 5 Signals Banks and Asset Managers Should Watch,” April 2026.

[21] CoinTelegraph, “Tokenization Doesn’t ‘Magically’ Fix Illiquid Assets,” Paris Blockchain Week panel, April 17, 2026.

[22] arXiv, “Tokenize Everything, But Can You Sell It? RWA Liquidity Challenges and the Road Ahead,” August 2025.

[23] BusinessWire, “ShredPay Launches Unified Blockchain Finance Platform for Retail and Institutional Users,” March 9, 2026.

[24] Baker McKenzie, “Tokenization in Financial Services,” June 2025.

[25] Calibraint, “Real Estate Tokenization Legal Pitfalls: Why Projects Failed in 2025 and How to Avoid Them in 2026,” January 2026.

Consensus 2026 was an absolute whirlwind. Amid the conversations and chaos of navigating South Beach between side events in 85 degrees Fahrenheit and 80% humidity, I had been mulling over a number of topics gathered from a week of immersion, suits, tees, and slides under one roof. My original list included jurisdictional gaps in Travel Rule implementation, the inflection point of institutional presence in crypto, and Charles Hoskinson’s prediction that AI agents will come to dominate the internet as we know it. I still plan to write on all of those, but the days that followed Consensus pulled me in a different direction entirely.

The Official After Party, hosted by CoinDesk at E11even Miami, was advertised as the event "where the conference ends and the real conversations begin, the ones that turn into partnerships, the ones that turn into wire transfers." By multiple accounts from attendees, what began as a professional gathering shifted as the night progressed, with reports of pole dancers, naked performers, and aggressive solicitation for lap dances in private rooms, all under the banner of an official industry event.

To understand why it happened and why it still matters, we need to take a moment to breathe and reflect on the Venn diagram of cultural identities that converged in Miami over the week, because somewhere in that diagram, occupying its own distinct circle, was Miami itself.

This is a city whose cultural DNA runs deeper than any single era or venue, a culture that predates the Fontainebleau’s golden age, when Sinatra held court and the lines between business, pleasure, and performance were never especially clear, and that has only grown more layered in the decades since. Any conversation about what happened Wednesday night that does not account for that context is missing part of the picture. And if Miami has its own circle in that diagram, E11even is a distinct expression of it, something I only came to appreciate more fully when I went back and dug into its history while pulling this piece together.

Opening in 2014, it has since become one of the highest-grossing nightclubs per square foot in the world, hosting everyone from Drake to Leonardo DiCaprio and the Florida Panthers as they celebrated their Stanley Cup. [1] During Art Basel each year, E11even anchors Miami's nightlife programming, featuring performers ranging from 50 Cent to Diplo to Marshmello, [2] functioning less as a fringe venue and more as a centerpiece of the city's cultural calendar, the kind of place that does not need defending in Miami, because in Miami, it does not require one. It also built its own crypto-native credentials along the way, including a sold-out NFT collection on the Ethereum blockchain and an artist management division whose first signing originated from the Bored Ape Yacht Club community. For those who may or may not remember, it was also the venue of choice for the North American Bitcoin Conference in 2018, which, as referenced in numerous publications, caused a kerfuffle and equally may have foreshadowed where we ended only days ago.

Viral clips and firsthand accounts from the evening circulated widely on X and LinkedIn in the days afterward. Those seeking this documentation can find it easily by searching on both platforms. For this write-up, images will be omitted; focusing solely on the content, and the implications for the industry.

Share

Three Identities, One Room

Into that context, if Miami’s club culture is the first identity to have been present that evening, two other identities, each with its own cultural logic and its own rules about what professionalism looks like, were also present.

• The second is crypto’s degen ethos, an identity forged in the industry’s early years, characterized by anti-authoritarianism, irreverence, risk tolerance, and a deliberate rejection of the norms governing mainstream finance.
  

• The third is the institutional TradFi culture that has been migrating into the space with increasing momentum since the ETF approvals of 2024, bringing with it a different set of expectations about what a professional environment is, what it signals, and what it costs to be associated with one that falls outside those expectations.

What made the collision sharper this year was the scale of institutional presence at Consensus itself, and the parallel scale of cultural demand on display at the closing party. The E11even event during Consensus week drew over 10,000 registrations for that single night, separate from the roughly 15,000 who attended the conference, and organizers reported turning away thousands due to capacity limitations.

Brent Fulfer, co-founder of The Best Event, framed a side of this tension in the pre-event press release, “We chose a venue that matches the ambition of the people walking through the door. This is not a side event.” [3]

From the perspective of some organizers and sponsors, the venue choice signaled that the market was burgeoning and warranted a celebration of equal measure in size and nature. E11even was a deliberate choice to the evening’s intent; it was the point, a deliberate signal to a specific constituency that this was their space.

The Stalwarts Have Arrived

No surprise to many that the nearly weeklong Consensus conference audience included Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan, who debuted as sponsors, a first for any major crypto conference, joining returning partners Fidelity, Mastercard, and Bridge by Stripe. [4] Senior executives attended from Charles Schwab, Franklin Templeton, Nasdaq, ICE, DTCC, and Citi, alongside the CFTC Chairman, a sitting U.S. Senator, and the White House’s digital assets adviser, all attending Consensus for the first time. Morgan Lewis, one of the largest and most institutionally conservative law firms in the United States, was a conference sponsor. [5] T. Rowe Price, Moody’s Ratings, and ProShares had senior representatives on the speaker roster. Roughly 35% of attendees represented institutional capital, collectively managing an estimated $10 trillion in assets under management (AUM).

These are firms outfitted with substantial compliance departments, legal teams, and HR frameworks that monitor reputational risk with the same intensity they currently apply to stablecoin exposure, and whose risk assessments extend, independently and without exception, to whoever is booking the afterparty. The closing party was not incidental to their presence at Consensus. It was part of the same week, under the same CoinDesk banner.

And here is the dimension the discourse has largely missed: the total addressable market (TAM) that crypto is actively trying to capture, the institutional allocators, the regulated asset managers, the compliance-driven legal and finance professionals who represent the next wave of meaningful adoption, many of whom are, ironically, not yet meaningfully participating in this landscape precisely because environments like the Consensus 2026 closing party signal a level of cultural risk they are not positioned to absorb. [6]

Subscribe now

Crypto’s Institutional Transition: A Decade in the Making

So how did we get to a moment where the largest banks in the world are sponsoring a crypto conference while its official closing party is generating formal regret statements from global law firms?

The honest answer is that we got here the way most reckonings arrive: in plain sight, over a long period of time, until a single event makes it impossible to look away. The distance between those two things, Wall Street on the main stage, and E11even at the close, is neither incidental nor straightforward. It is the product of an industry that has been running two parallel narratives simultaneously - like a runaway train:

1. The first, and most visible, is about institutional legitimacy, earned through a decade of infrastructure building, regulatory engagement, and survival through market cycles that would have ended most nascent industries, culminating in a week where the largest banks in the world showed up not as observers but as sponsors.

2. The second, and more nuanced, is about a culture that has never fully reckoned with what it means to invite an entirely different professional community into the room it built on its own terms, one with its own risk frameworks, its own reputational exposure, and its own definition of what a professional environment is supposed to signal. Consensus remains one of the few conferences where these two narratives intersect every year, but this year the divide between them became impossible to overlook. Which by all measures tracked with the beat of the week - “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

From 600 to Well Over 15,000 Attendees, and Numerous Wall Street Sponsors

Consensus itself began in September 2015 with roughly 600 attendees, with speakers from the World Economic Forum, USAA, and the New York Times. [8] The industry reflected at that moment was nascent, ideologically driven, and operating largely outside the mainstream financial sector's awareness. Bitcoin had survived the collapse of Mt. Gox the previous year, which had lost 850,000 BTC, approximately 6% of all Bitcoin in existence at the time, valued at roughly $450 million. [9]

By 2018, the mood had shifted dramatically. Promoters parked Lamborghinis on New York City’s 6th Avenue, fly-by-night law firms manned “ICO in a box” booths, and hucksters stalked the hallways with white papers. The scene was one of excess but also unbridled optimism. [10] It was also, in retrospect, the peak of an era that could not sustain itself.

The Reckoning, and What Followed

The LUNA/UST crash in May 2022 led to a staggering $40 billion loss in market capitalization within days, rippling through crypto credit markets and resulting in several high-profile bankruptcies. [11] Then, in November 2022, FTX collapsed, vaporizing tens of billions in customer assets and shattering institutional confidence. [12] The mood that pervaded the conference circuit in early 2023 was defined by dark mutterings about who on stage the previous year would be arrested next, or how to pivot to AI. [10]

The industry did not collapse. It restructured. Each crisis, from Mt. Gox to FTX, initially appeared to threaten the entire ecosystem, yet the market consistently emerged stronger and more mature, with infrastructure becoming more robust, regulations becoming clearer, and institutional participation broadening. [13] The post-FTX period produced something the industry had spent years resisting: a serious, sustained engagement with the question of what legitimate financial infrastructure actually requires.

The stalemate ended on January 10, 2024, when the SEC approved eleven spot Bitcoin ETFs from the likes of BlackRock and Fidelity, allowing Bitcoin to trade through fully regulated brokerage accounts for the first time. Four months later, on May 23, 2024, the SEC approved the first spot Ether ETFs, cementing Ethereum’s role as an investable, regulated asset. With ETFs in place, institutions no longer ask how to buy Bitcoin or Ethereum, but how much to own. [14]

Consensus 2026

Blockchain was no longer a frontier technology built by crypto-bros and visionaries; in its latest iteration, it was the baseline for what is quickly becoming mainstream payments and banking rails, finding its way into every corner of Wall Street. [10] Banks and traditional finance firms were no longer asking what blockchain is, but how they can build on it, chomping-at-the-bit as they await the passage of The CLARITY Act, which, at the time of writing, had cleared the Senate Banking Committee and will be moving on to its next phase of reviews [35][15]. JPMorgan’s blockchain platform, Kinexys, has processed more than $1 trillion in transactions. Citi’s tokenized deposit system had moved from handling millions to billions. The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq were accelerating plans to roll out platforms for tokenized equities. Morgan Stanley had launched a Bitcoin ETF and planned more. [16]

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, speaking at Consensus, framed the regulatory dimension: The CLARITY Act represented a “big positive shift” for crypto policy, but one still fragile enough to fail. After years of enforcement-driven uncertainty, the industry was finally close enough to statutory clarity to see it, and the cost of losing that moment would be measured in capital flows, institutional confidence, and the long-term legitimacy of U.S. digital asset markets. [17]

As Fortune’s Jeff John Roberts put it, writing from Miami the week the conference opened, “the upshot is that, these days, it’s increasingly grown-ups and serious people left in crypto. This is a good thing and a big reason that Fortune has decided to acknowledge the industry’s many accomplishments.” [10]

Within that context, a similar tension has persisted since the Official After Party hosted at E11even: as the industry evolves and becomes more professional, there is a growing disconnect over who is considered relevant and meaningful from the perspective of participation. Raising important questions about what kind of environment serious industry participants should operate in.

The Discourse That Followed

Within hours, the rapidly spreading discourse shifted focus from tokenization roadmaps, side-events, or morning yoga meetups to deeper questions about industry belonging, environmental signals of inclusion, and whether crypto has attained the cultural self-awareness necessary for its institutional goals. Conversations across X, LinkedIn, and private channels are now centered on how these issues impact culture, operational practices, legal considerations, and industry participation. Additionally, some discussions raised concerns about personal safety.

The complication of the moment wasn't primarily about the venue itself — Miami — nor was it mainly about the dancers, such as those at E11even, which features adult performers, live artists, and a diverse cast of entertainment professionals. This venue has hosted events during fashion week, Art Basel, and music conferences for years. Instead, what was notable and what the ensuing days focused on was the unsettling dialogue that emerged - including commentary from a wide range of people present, as well as those recalling past lived experiences in similar circumstances. The rapid and intense discourse that has since engulfed the community includes corporate distancing statements, satirical counter-apologies, and immediate fractures among communities that had been sharing the same conference floor until then.

Consensys, the Ethereum software company behind MetaMask and Infura, and not to be confused with CoinDesk's Consensus conference, issued a public statement distancing itself from the event, noting its logo had appeared via a reciprocal partnership arrangement and that it was reviewing its brand usage processes. Dentons, one of the largest law firms in the world, followed with a formal regret statement on LinkedIn, citing a commitment to "respect, dignity, and professionalism," and disabled comments, a move that read more about containment than anything else, given that at least one partner at the firm had publicly celebrated their sponsorship of the event in the days prior, a post that has since been removed. [18]

The broader comment sections across LinkedIn and X contained their own data. While some comments showed substantive disagreement, much of it was sharply personal and aimed directly at discrediting the critics rather than addressing their concerns. This illustrates what the original event only hinted at: that speaking out in this environment carries real, calculated costs, particularly to one's professional credibility.

Leave a comment

Multiple Perspectives Within Crypto

Velvet Capital, whose VIP segment and focus during the afterparty at E11even generated its own separate thread of controversy, responded with a satirical open letter addressed to “Crypto Twitter,” apologizing for “having a great time,” for “kicking it with top traders, KOLs, founders, and VCs while the music slapped and the deals flowed,” and promising to screen future attendees to ensure nobody arrives with “alpha or any fun.” The letter was written for a specific audience, played to that audience, and received accordingly, lacking substance or guidance on the genuine concerns raised.

Amanda Wick, Founder and Board Member of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency and Head of Americas at VerifyVASP, whose presence at Consensus spanned the AWIC compliance panel on Tuesday morning and the broader week of institutional programming, cut directly through the culture debate. “When I think about what happened Wednesday night, I don’t think about the venue,” she said. “I think about the firms whose names were on it. Every one of them now has to answer for that internally - to partners, to clients, to the people they’re trying to hire. And every firm still deciding whether to take crypto seriously just got a reason to wait. That’s the real cost. Not the discourse on X.”

Another anonymous perspective came from someone who was actually inside E11even that night, a female professional at a major exchange and a local to Miami, who offered a dimension that the broader discourse largely ignored. Adult entertainers and sex workers are among the most systematically excluded demographics from traditional banking infrastructure, routinely denied accounts, payment processing, and basic financial access. Crypto and DeFi have long positioned themselves as the financial vehicle for underserved and demographically diverse populations. For an industry that built its identity around an inclusion narrative, is this event reflective of that ideal, or marginalizing a percentage of the unbanked and underserved?

The culmination of these perspectives reflects an industry in conflict with its own identity. The 2026 Consensus after-party vividly displayed the industry’s internal conflict and its divided populace. The conference, where Wall Street executives mingled with crypto enthusiasts, highlighted this tension more clearly than a week of panels ever could, showcasing the contrasting personas that embody these conflicting worlds.

Join The Conversation on LinkedIn

Optics, Signaling, and Institutional Maturity

Finance, pharma, and tech all have a version of this chapter, and none of them handled it gracefully on the first attempt.

The finance industry’s clearest turning point arrived in 1996, when three women at a Long Island branch of Smith Barney filed a class-action lawsuit describing a workplace culture built around what the male brokers called the “Boom-Boom Room.” When those women complained internally, they were told to get along with the men involved. When they escalated, they were told they sounded “hysterical” and should simply quit. By October 1996, 23 women across ten states had joined the suit, which ultimately grew to 22,000 participants and settled for $150 million.[22] Merrill Lynch settled its own parallel class action the following year for $250 million. [23] Morgan Stanley followed at $54 million. [23] The cumulative legal and reputational costs prompted those firms, along with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank, to overhaul their HR policies and cultural norms that had, until then, functioned primarily to protect whoever generated the most revenue. [24] None of that reform happened solely because the industry reflected on its values. The math became undeniable.

Pharma’s version unfolded differently but followed the same underlying logic. Through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, pharmaceutical sales culture operated on a hospitality model that included entertainment, gifts, resort events, and client dinners, all of which bore little resemblance to anything a compliance officer would sanction today. The 2002 PhRMA Code, adopted amid mounting DOJ scrutiny and $1.2 billion in fines for marketing violations, prohibited healthcare professionals from receiving any entertainment or recreational perks, including sports tickets, golf outings, and resort events. [25] By 2009, the code had been tightened further to ban even branded pens and notepads, and to restrict meals to in-office settings with a documented educational component. [26] The 2022 revision prohibited alcohol at speaker programs and required that venues be, in explicit terms, “conducive to informational communication.” [27]

Tech moved faster, but only after the pressure became public and undeniable. In February 2017, former Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a detailed account of sexual harassment and gender discrimination at the company, describing a management culture that ignored complaints and protected the people responsible for them. [28] The blog post triggered a cascade of similar disclosures across the industry, including allegations against senior executives at Binary Capital and 500 Startups, as well as multiple senior Google employees; lawsuits against UploadVR and SoFi; and allegations against Uber. The conversation that followed produced a line from DST Global’s Yuri Milner that captured the moment precisely: “What was acceptable even a few years ago is no longer acceptable.” [29] The industry had not changed its values; it had changed its calculation about what the cost of inaction looked like.

The argument is the same across all three. The culture that produced the problem had been normalized by the argument that it was simply how the industry worked, and that participation was a reasonable expectation of anyone who wanted to be taken seriously. In each case, that argument held until the legal exposure, the talent cost, and the reputational association made it more expensive than changing the behavior. The firms that moved earlier paid less.

Crypto is not finance in the 1990s, or pharma in the early 2000s, or tech in 2017. But self-awareness is not institutional maturity, and the gap between them is exactly what a moment like this one surfaces.

In 2018, the North American Bitcoin Conference held its afterparty at E11even, documented by Fortune and Bloomberg for naked dancers, drugs, and men sliding dollars into performers’ clothing at what was billed as a networking event. That backlash forced public apologies within days. In 2026, with considerably higher institutional stakes and a considerably more credentialed audience in the room, the same venue, the same controversy, and this time silence from CoinDesk, Bullish, and The Best Event. [34] Lessons that were not understood eight years ago are now resurfacing as questions. It remains unclear whether these questions will be answered before the consequences of neglect become more severe than what showed up in the LinkedIn comment section, and whether those questions could result in more intense and/or retaliatory decision-making.

Talent as An Opportunity Cost

The Junior Talent Dimension

Beyond senior professionals making attendance decisions, junior analysts and early-career talent entering regulated firms are watching the same signals, and for them, the calculus is different and more acute. When a company-sponsored event at an industry conference takes place in an environment that raises questions of psychological safety, junior employees, particularly women, are not in a position to opt out in any meaningful sense. Attendance at sanctioned firm events can be interpreted as a professional obligation, rather than a personal choice, and the power dynamics between a junior employee and the senior colleagues who organized or encouraged that attendance make the distinction between voluntary and mandatory attendance effectively meaningless in practice. And the reasons a professional might find an environment like this one difficult to navigate are not limited to gender or seniority.

Religious, Social, and Cultural Norms

For some, it is a religious or cultural conviction. For others, it is not the performers themselves but the broader behavioral environment that surrounds a venue of this kind, the loss of professional boundaries, the erosion of social norms that typically govern conduct, and the reasonable concern about what they might be drawn into, witness to, or associated with in ways they did not consent to and cannot easily exit.

Environmental Abuse & Trauma

For others still, it is personal history, prior experiences of abuse or trauma that make certain environments not merely uncomfortable but genuinely reactivating in ways that are invisible to the room and impossible to explain to a senior colleague who organized the evening. The risk does not fall evenly. It falls on the people with the least organizational standing to name it, resist it, or recover from the professional consequences of doing either. This matters for the industry’s pipeline in a specific and measurable way: women currently make up less than 30% of the crypto workforce [32], only 6% of crypto leadership roles are held by women [32], and female professionals in the blockchain sector earn up to 46% less than their male counterparts in equivalent roles [33]. An industry that asks those same professionals to absorb additional reputational and psychological exposure to participate in its flagship networking environments is not simply sending a cultural signal. It presents a structural argument about who rightfully belongs here and who is expected to quietly bear the cost of entry in belonging.

Participation, Access, and What the Week Actually Built

Consensus 2026 produced a week’s worth of evidence that this industry is capable of the institutional seriousness it claims to want, outside of the one night that handed everyone already inclined toward skepticism a reason to discount that evidence, and the people who absorbed that cost most directly were the ones who had invested the most in building the serious version of the week in the first place. That asymmetry is the tell, and its consequences are unlikely to surface on X or LinkedIn, arriving instead in quieter recalibrations, in attendance decisions, sponsorship conversations, and whether the compliance officer at a regulated firm puts Consensus on next year’s approved list at all.

The argument is not that one night erased the value of the week. The relationships built on the conference floor offered tremendous substance and depth, creating a bridge for meaningful, real relationship cultivation. It also in many ways created more visiblity and intentionality around women’s presence in the space than in prior cycles, reflected in Her3 at Consensus [30], the Evolvh3r x AWIC partnership [31], and the #UnManelYourPanel initiative, organizations committed to making sure women have a seat in these rooms not as a gesture but as a structural commitment. That work represents genuine progress worth naming precisely because it is the kind of progress that gets obscured when the closing party becomes the story.

What the closing party introduced was a variable that nobody involved in planning the serious parts of the week had asked for, and that they now have to explain anyway. That variable is woven into the Consensus 2026 memory for anyone who heard about it, whether they were there or not, casting a shadow over a week of substantive work that had nothing to do with it. In the days that followed, I spoke with women at law firms, insurance companies, banks, and in founder roles, some of whom were not in Miami at all, who are now carrying a version of the week partly shaped by something they had no hand in and would not have chosen on behalf of the institutions they represent. That is the consequence worth the industry’s honest acknowledgment, not erasure, but a contamination of the signal at precisely the moment when the signal mattered most.

Professional access in any industry is not distributed solely through formal channels. Deals get discussed at afterparties. Introductions happen in the margins of conferences, in the kind of unstructured social time that produces the relationships that actually move careers and capital. When the environment in which that social infrastructure is built is one that a meaningful portion of the professional community cannot comfortably enter on equal terms, the resulting gap is not a feelings problem. It is a structural one, and it compounds at every conference, afterparty, and informal gathering where the same dynamics recur.

Crypto’s Ongoing Cultural Identity Negotiation

The conversation that erupted after Wednesday night was loud, fast, and perhaps a long-overdue reckoning as much as it was a spectacular overreaction - and at times, occasionally both at once. What surfaced was a negotiation that had been running beneath the surface of this industry for years.

The Convergence

The degen community was here before the ETFs, before the institutional mandates, built on anti-authoritarianism, radical self-autonomy, and the foundational premise that the old rules about who deserved a seat at the table did not apply. That claim on the culture is real, and dismissing it as unprofessional misses something important about how this industry got here.

And yet here is the irony. The same radical inclusivity that made crypto’s early culture genuinely revolutionary becomes complicated when applied to a sponsored professional environment where not everyone can participate on equal terms. Irreverence toward institutions is not the same thing as indifference to the people inside the room. The question the industry has not yet answered is what genuine inclusivity looks like when the community has grown large enough and institutional enough that its social architecture starts to function differently than it once did.

The silence that speaks loudest

Several women, whose insights could have greatly enriched this piece, chose not to be quoted, citing company policy. The professionals who hold the most institutional credibility also face the greatest risks if they speak publicly. Their silence doesn’t reflect indifference but is part of an ongoing risk assessment that influences every decision about conference attendance and internal recommendations on where the firm should focus its presence next year.

What this moment actually asks

The question is not whether crypto should have a culture. It should, and it does. The question is whether the cultural norms formed in its frontier years can scale to meet the institutional moment it has spent a decade building toward, and what it costs in talent, trust, and the composition of the rooms where the future gets built, if the answer is no.

Crypto has spent years making the case that it deserves to be the trust layer for the global financial system. The legislative moment currently underway remains fragile but closer to statutory clarity than the industry has ever been, making the cultural signals sent at its flagship public moments all the more consequential. One afterparty event does not wholly derail what crypto aspires to be. What it does is reveal the distance still to be traveled between what the industry says it is building and the environment it is building it in, and whether the people with the most at stake in closing that distance are paying attention before the cost of not paying attention shows up somewhere more consequential than a LinkedIn thread.

The views expressed in this piece are solely those of the author and and reflect the author’s cultural observations and opinions only. Nothing contained herein constitutes or should be construed as financial, investment, or legal advice, nor does it represent the positions, views, or opinions of any companies, organizations, or individuals mentioned. Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained in this piece.

Sources

[1] E11EVEN Miami official site. https://www.11miami.com

[2] “Miami Art Week 2025,” E11EVEN Miami Special Events. https://www.11miami.com/special-events/best-art-basel-parties-in-miami

[3] Brent Fulfer, “The Best Event Hosts Consensus Miami 2026 Afterparty,” Chainwire, April 28, 2026. https://chainwire.org/2026/04/28/the-best-event-hosts-consensus-miami-2026-afterparty-transforming-deal-flow-into-an-unforgettable-night/

[4] Vicky Ge Huang, “Out With the Lamborghinis, In With the Suits: The Changing Face of Cryptoland,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/out-with-the-lamborghinis-in-with-the-suits-the-changing-face-of-cryptoland-c41d022d — cited here for first-time sponsor detail (Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan); also cited at [16] for broader institutional attendance and cultural framing.

[5] Nicholet R., “Wall Street’s Crypto Migration Turns Real, Industry Leaders Say at Consensus Miami,” Crypto Economy, May 6, 2026. https://crypto-economy.com/wall-streets-crypto-migration-turns-real/ — cited here for Morgan Lewis sponsor and speaker roster details; also cited at [15] for implementation-over-education framing.

[6] “Crypto Industry Throws Lap-Dance Party in Middle of Bear Market,” Bloomberg, May 9, 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-09/crypto-industry-throws-lap-dance-party-in-middle-of-bear-market

[7] Vicky Ge Huang, The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/out-with-the-lamborghinis-in-with-the-suits-the-changing-face-of-cryptoland-c41d022d — cited here for 35% institutional attendance and $10 trillion AUM figures.

[8] “Consensus by CoinDesk,” IQ.wiki. https://iq.wiki/events/consensus-by-coindesk

[9] “Mt. Gox Collapse: The Largest Crypto Exchange Failure in History,” Bitget Academy, March 5, 2026. https://www.bitget.com/amp/academy/mt-gox-collapse

[10] Jeff John Roberts, “The Crypto Industry Is Obsessed With Conferences. The Vibe at Them Is Changing,” Fortune, May 4, 2026. https://fortune.com/crypto/2026/05/04/crypto-industry-conference-changing-vibes-crypto-10/

[11] “Top 6 Crypto Failures: Mt. Gox, FTX, LUNA, 3AC, Celsius and Voyager,” Luna Token Wire, June 7, 2025. https://lunatokenwire.com/top-6-crypto-failures-mt-gox-ftx-luna-3ac-celsius-voyager-impact-on-digital-asset-market-trends-lessons-learned/

[12] “The 5 Unbelievable Crypto Comeback Stories That Changed the World Forever,” CryptoSlate, October 25, 2025. https://cryptoslate.com/the-5-greatest-comeback-stories-in-crypto-that-changed-the-world-forever/

[13] “The Crypto Timeline: 2000s–2025 Key Milestones,” Bitget Academy, August 19, 2025. https://www.bitget.com/academy/key-cryptocurrency-milestones

[14] “Institutional Adoption: What It Really Means for Crypto,” CoinShares, November 3, 2025. https://coinshares.com/insights/knowledge/institutional-adoption-what-it-really-means-for-crypto/

[15] Nicholet R., “Wall Street’s Crypto Migration Turns Real,” Crypto Economy, May 6, 2026. https://crypto-economy.com/wall-streets-crypto-migration-turns-real/ — cited here for implementation-over-education framing in Section II.

[16] Vicky Ge Huang, “Out With the Lamborghinis, In With the Suits,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/out-with-the-lamborghinis-in-with-the-suits-the-changing-face-of-cryptoland-c41d022d — cited here for broader institutional attendance and cultural framing in Section II.

[17] “Ripple’s Garlinghouse at Consensus 2026 Declares a ‘Big Positive Shift’ for Crypto,” HedgeCo.net, May 7, 2026. https://hedgeco.net/news/05/2026/ripples-garlinghouse-at-consensus-2026-declares-a-big-positive-shift-for-crypto.html

[18] Dentons, “Our firm was a sponsor of an official event that was part of the Consensus 2026 Miami conference,” LinkedIn, May 2026. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dentons_our-firm-was-a-sponsor-of-an-official-event-activity-7459771864652107777-Rhxl

[19] “Challenging Harassment in the Workplace: A Key Priority at the EEOC,” Littler, May 2024. https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/littler-report/challenging-harassment-workplace-key-priority-eeoc-0

[20] “When Can an Employer Be Liable for Harassment Happening Outside of Work?” McAfee and Taft, May 5, 2025. https://www.mcafeetaft.com/when-can-an-employer-be-liable-for-harassment-happening-outside-of-work/

[21] “EEOC Commission Votes to Rescind 2024 Harassment Guidance,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, January 2026. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-commission-votes-rescind-2024-harassment-guidance

[22] Susan Antilla, “Stark Lessons From Wall Street’s #MeToo Moment,” The Intercept, October 7, 2019. https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/metoo-wall-street-sexual-harassment-arbitration/

[23] “25 Years After the ‘Boom Boom Room’ Lawsuit, Wall Street Still Has a Long Way to Go,” CNN Business, May 27, 2021. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/perspectives/boom-boom-room-lawsuit-wall-street — cited for Merrill Lynch $250M and Morgan Stanley $54M settlements.

[24] “How Come Wall Street Hasn’t Been Caught Up in the #MeToo Movement?” History News Network, April 15, 2018. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/how-come-wall-street-hasnt-been-caught-up-in-the-m

[25] “The 2002 PhRMA Code and Pharmaceutical Marketing: Did Anybody Bother to Ask the Reps?” ResearchGate, 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47701917_The_2002_PhRMA_Code_and_Pharmaceutical_Marketing_Did_Anybody_Bother_to_Ask_the_Reps

[26] “The New Code,” Pharm Exec, 2009. https://www.pharmexec.com/view/new-code

[27] “PhRMA Code 2022: Speaker Programs Enter a Prohibition Era?” Ropes & Gray, August 2021. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2021/September/PhRMA-Code-2022-Speaker-Programs-Enter-a-Prohibition-Era

[28] “Uber Harassment Claims: A Deep Dive into a Troubled Ride,” Kherkher Garcia. https://www.kherkhergarcia.com/uber-harassment-claims-troubled-ride/

[29] “Dispatches on Diversity: Uber, Sexual Harassment and Venture Capital,” TechCrunch, September 23, 2017. https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/23/dispatches-on-diversity-uber-sexual-harassment-and-venture-capital/

[30] “Her3 Women’s Pro Pass,” Consensus by CoinDesk. https://consensus.coindesk.com/her3-womens-pro-pass/-id/0

[31] Evolvher. https://evolvh3r.com/

[32] “Men vs. Women in Crypto Adoption Statistics 2025: Trends, Barriers & Progress,” CoinLaw, 2025. https://coinlaw.io/men-vs-women-in-crypto-adoption-statistics/

[33] Web3 Finance Club and Request Finance, “Web3 Finance Compensation Report 2024,” June 2024, p. 28. https://www.web3financeclub.com/web3-compensation-report — registration required to access full report.

[34] Sahil Thakur, "Consensus 2026 Afterparty at Strip Club Sparks Backlash," Our Crypto Talk, May 11, 2026. https://ourcryptotalk.com/news/consensus-2026-afterparty-at-strip-club-faces-backlash

One of those meetings has stayed with me. I had a chance to connect with a reader of this publication -- a Risk Officer at a regional bank in the Midwest -- ahead of Consensus. We spent an hour talking through what she is seeing from her seat. Her read: many regional banks are still in wait-and-see mode, and the decision points around digital assets and tokenization at institutions like hers remain largely predicated on greater clarity at the regulatory and compliance levels. That conversation revalidated why this year’s Consensus in Miami feels worth paying close attention to, not just for what gets said on stage, but for what it tells us about how non-crypto-native institutions are thinking heading into the rest of 2026, and how much the compliance and risk function has shifted from “do we need to care about this” to “how do we get ahead of it.”

It is conversations like these that explain why I delayed writing for the past few weeks. They also revalidate exactly what I am hoping to gain from being in the room -- and why sometimes we need to pause before going onto the next piece. I head to Miami tomorrow. Here is a peek at what I am going to look for, and why what happens after the room clears matters more than what happens inside it.

Subscribe now

The Assumption That Consensus Is Not a Barometer of Crypto Sentiment Anymore

It has not been for some time, though the shift has a fairly clear starting point.

Consensus has run since 2015, most recently through three consecutive years in Austin from 2022 to 2024. For most of that period, it functioned primarily as an industry gathering - builders, founders, retail-adjacent investors, and a rotating cast of institutional observers who showed up to watch without committing. The vibe, not the capital, set the tone. That began to change in 2023 as BlackRock filed its spot Bitcoin ETF application - a signal that the world’s largest asset manager was prepared to stake institutional credibility on the asset class. When the SEC approved spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024, and BlackRock’s IBIT launched, becoming the fastest-growing ETF in history, accumulating over $30 billion in assets in its first year, institutional participation stopped being aspirational and became structural.

What Consensus has become since is a proxy for where that institutional appetite actually sits -- not where it says it sits in press releases, but where it shows up with people, capital, and in 2026, for the first time, sponsorship dollars from Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan.

Share

Proof-Of-Market

Institutional attendance this year has nearly doubled, now accounting for roughly 35% of the audience and representing an estimated $10 trillion in assets under management, according to Consensus VP Brad Spies. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, Senator Ashley Moody, and White House official Patrick Witt are attending a Consensus event for the first time.

And then there is the social calendar. CoinDesk’s official Proof of Steak dinner at Papi Steak on Wednesday the 6th -- which CoinDesk itself describes as one of the marquee moments carrying “the most FOMO energy” - tells you something on its own. I am vegan, so I will not be there, but the fact that a beef dinner has become a flagship networking event at a crypto conference is its own kind of signal. The people writing the biggest checks in this room are no longer countercultural. They eat at Papi Steak. Proof-of-steak is proof-of-market.

Worth flagging separately: EDAS: Payments Day on May 5th is one of the side events I am most excited about - a focused session on privacy, compliance, and risk for on-chain enterprise payments hosted by Vouch, Bitwave, Canton, Aleo, and Anchorage Digital. I love the work they are doing, and this is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to happen alongside the main floor programming.

What remains an open question is not whether the capital is in the room. It is whether the deals made there, the regulatory signals sent, and the commitments announced actually hold once everyone flies home. That is what I am watching.

Leave a comment

What the Agenda Architecture Tells You Before a Single Session Starts

Conference programming is its own form of evidence. This year’s agenda spans a Capital Markets Summit, a Regulation and Policy Summit, and dedicated tracks on stablecoins and tokenization. There is also a dedicated Agentic Commerce pillar - a theme that barely registered at last year’s event but has now moved to center stage, with more than 20 sessions devoted to it alone.

The fact that tokenization now shares structural weight with stablecoins and AI in the programming architecture is not incidental. It reflects where serious institutional building is actually happening. RWA tokenization has moved from exploratory panels to a dedicated infrastructure track. That shift in conference real estate mirrors what is happening in the market.

CoinGecko’s RWA Report 2026, published this week, shows tokenized RWAs tripled since early 2025, reaching $19.3 billion in market capitalization by the end of Q1 2026. Tokenized commodities - led by gold-backed tokens - grew 289% in a single quarter. rwa.xyz tracks $30.82 billion in distributed on-chain RWA value as of the 2nd. Against the scale of global capital markets, that number is still early. The gap between institutional appetite and deployable infrastructure is wide. Consensus Miami is where a significant portion of the people trying to close it will be in the same building for three days.

The Regulatory Questions I Am Watching - and Whether Consensus Answers Any of Them

Here is where I am most focused: what the Regulation and Policy Summit surfaces - and specifically what Atkins and Selig signal across their appearances this week - and whether any of the open regulatory questions get meaningfully advanced.

On the 11th of March, the SEC and CFTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a Joint Harmonization Initiative, committing both agencies to coordinate on product definitions, oversight, and enforcement. The agencies explicitly framed it as an end to the jurisdictional turf war that had created a regulatory no-man ’s-land for digital assets. That coordination framework matters directly for tokenized securities: jurisdiction determines registration requirements, listing eligibility, investor protections, and enforcement exposure.

The CLARITY Act remains stuck in the Senate with disputes over stablecoin yield, DeFi provisions, and ethics language still unresolved. Galaxy Digital puts the odds of passage this year at roughly 50/50.

Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act implementation is actively being narrowed. The FDIC, OCC, and Treasury are each running proposed rulemakings that will shape how stablecoins operate in practice, covering AML programs, sanctions compliance, and reserve treatment. One distinction that received almost no public attention: on the 7th of April, the FDIC clarified that tokenized deposits meeting the statutory definition of “deposit” would be treated no differently under federal law than any other deposit. That single determination has significant downstream implications for how banks structure on-chain products.

Will any of this surface clearly at Consensus? That is genuinely an open question. The more interesting version of these conversations tends not to happen on stage.

According to the January 2026 EY-Parthenon and Coinbase survey of 351 institutional investors, 66% cite regulatory uncertainty as a primary concern when investing in digital assets, while 65% of those planning to increase holdings say greater regulatory clarity is the single biggest driver. That tension is not going to be resolved at Consensus. But what Atkins and Selig say while they are there will be watched carefully. I will be listening for precision in that language, not just the headline.

Where I Will Be

I am starting Monday morning at the AWIC breakfast panel, “Trust Under Pressure: Risk, Regulation, and the Future of Crypto Compliance,” hosted alongside Consensus with BDO, Hedera, and VerifyVASP. The panel focuses on Travel Rule implementation, counterparty risk assessment, and where public-private coordination on compliance is actually working versus where it is performative. That conversation is a direct complement to what I expect to come out of the Regulation and Policy Summit on the main floor - and probably a more honest version of it.

I will also be dialing into Wealth Management Day on the 6th - a closed-door forum for financial advisors and wealth managers covering fiduciary risk, regulation, and client-facing communication on digital assets. This is the conversation that maps most directly to where my readership sits, and I am particularly interested in how advisors are framing digital assets and tokenization for clients who are not yet in the room.

On the 7th, I will be at the AWIC Facilitated Networking Session, a structured event organized by the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency that brings together compliance, risk, policy, legal, and innovation professionals. As Founding Treasurer of the AWIC San Francisco Chapter, I am most looking forward to this conversation. The people in that room are doing some of the less visible but structurally important work in this space.

Beyond those anchors, I am paying attention to the conversations that do not happen on stage - the exchanges between asset managers who flew in from somewhere that is not New York, the founders building infrastructure the broader industry has not heard of yet, and the legal and compliance professionals quietly doing the hardest parts of this work.

That layer is where the most useful signal tends to live.

What Comes Next

I am planning to publish from the floor while I am in Miami, shorter dispatches as conversations happen, rather than waiting until I am back. The deeper follow-up reporting and analysis will come after, once there is time to assess what actually moved versus what was just well-packaged for a conference audience.

On the 13th, the AWIC San Francisco Chapter is hosting a panel directly relevant to everything Consensus is going to surface: San Francisco AWIC Panel: How Compliance, Risk and Regulation Are Shaping Digital Assets - and I am excited to be meeting with a few panelists while at Consensus, which I personally believe, means the conversation on the 13th will benefit from whatever comes out of Miami, feeding directly into it. If you are in San Francisco, register. If you are not, it is virtual and open to members and non-members.

If there is a specific regulatory question, infrastructure segment, or conversation thread from this week that you want me to dig into further, reply and let me know. I read everything.

The RWA Ledger exists because this space needs analysis rigorous enough for the people actually building and allocating in it. Consensus Miami is three days where a significant amount of that work becomes visible. I will be there.

About The RWA Ledger

The RWA Ledger is a research and media platform focused on tokenization and the evolution of financial infrastructure toward more verifiable, on-chain systems. Each piece analyzes how these systems intersect with real-world financial infrastructure -- including regulation, custody, risk, and operational constraints -- with a focus on what actually drives institutional adoption beyond the crypto-native environment.

The publication is written and edited by Marina Mendenhall-Valente, Founder and Principal of The RWA Ledger and Founding Treasurer of the AWIC San Francisco Chapter. Marina works at the intersection of digital asset strategy, institutional finance, and market development through The RWA Ledger and Tiburon Advisory Group.

All views expressed are my own.

The Letter

Every year, Jamie Dimon writes his annual letter to shareholders, and each time, the questions that come to mind are similar: what is the letter really saying, and what might it be softening or excluding?

This year’s letter, published on April 6th, spans 48 pages. Most of it concentrates on key risks: the war in Iran, inflation, private credit, and AI. While these points are largely accurate, it’s important to note that they are also the topics Dimon is most comfortable discussing openly.

Start with the economy. Dimon calls it resilient. Read the letter closely, and you find the qualifier he buries in the same sentence: “consumers still earning and spending, (though with some recent weakening).”^[1] Credit card balances now sit above $1.3 trillion. Delinquencies are rising. Consumer spending is increasingly supported by credit rather than income growth. Resilience is the word you use to describe forward momentum without inviting questions about what lies beneath it.

On inflation, he is more candid. He calls it the “skunk at the party,” and the framing is precise: the war in Iran creates conditions for persistent oil and commodity price shocks that could push rates higher than markets currently expect.^[2] He adds that “interest rates are like gravity to almost all asset prices.”^[1] That is not a hedge. That is a warning about the repricing risk embedded in the current consensus.

On private credit, the letter says the $1.8 trillion market “probably” does not present systemic risk, then spends several paragraphs describing weakening credit standards, opaque valuations, and losses already running higher than the environment should produce.^[1] Probably is doing a lot of work in that sentence, and it is worth asking why a CEO with this much visibility into the credit system reaches for that word rather than a stronger one.

On AI, there is no hedging. He calls it transformational and says the pace will exceed prior technological revolutions. JPMorgan has a $19.8 billion technology budget for 2026, with AI at the center. Reports published the week following the letter confirm Dimon is expected to step down within 24 months, with Marianne Lake and Troy Rohrbaugh emerging as frontrunners to succeed him.^[3] A CEO setting a technology agenda of that scale eighteen months before a handover is making a statement about what he wants the institution to become, not just what it is.

Then there is the blockchain passage. It occupies one paragraph in a 48-page document. Most coverage treated it as a footnote. Here is what it says:

To understand why that paragraph carries more weight than its length suggests, you need the eighteen months that preceded it.

Subscribe now

The Arc

Here is the short version of what happened, and why it matters.

The crypto industry spent nearly $250 million backing candidates ahead of the 2024 election, with Coinbase and a16z crypto as the two most powerful voices.^[4] That investment produced real wins, including the passage of the GENIUS Act last summer, which established a federal framework for payment stablecoins. But it also produced something the industry did not fully anticipate: it brought the banking lobby into the fight in a way it had not been before.

The specific issue was yield. A structural feature of the GENIUS Act allowed stablecoin issuers’ partners to pay yield on stablecoin holdings even as issuers themselves were restricted. Coinbase, through its revenue-sharing arrangement with Circle on USDC, was offering holders approximately 3.5% annually. For context, the FDIC national average savings account rate is 0.39% APY as of April 2026, while the best high-yield savings accounts offered by online banks reach approximately 4.0% to 4.1% APY.^[5] Stablecoins are not FDIC-insured, a distinction the banking industry has consistently raised as a consumer-protection concern, and regulators have not yet resolved it through a unified framework. The yield differential relative to the national average is significant; relative to the best available high-yield savings products, it is narrower, and that distinction matters for how deposit flight risk is actually modeled.

The deposit flight concern is worth pausing on because it is the empirical foundation on which the entire banking industry argument rests, and it is now contested. Two figures circulate in the debate, and they are measuring different things. The $6.6 trillion figure, cited by bank executives and drawn from a Treasury analysis, models long-term deposit migration across the entire U.S. deposit base under aggressive stablecoin adoption scenarios, with no specified time horizon.^[6] The $1.3 trillion figure comes from the Independent Community Bankers of America and represents their estimate of near-term deposit losses specifically at community banks, a narrower institutional subset, with $850 billion in reduced lending to follow.^[7] These are not competing estimates of the same thing. They are different models, different scopes, and different timeframes, which is precisely why the debate has been difficult to resolve at the legislative level.

A White House Council of Economic Advisers report published April 8th took a narrower view of both: eliminating stablecoin yield, in their base case, lifts bank lending by approximately $2.1 billion, roughly 0.02% of total loans, while imposing a net welfare cost on consumers.^[7] The CEA's reasoning is that most stablecoin reserves remain within the banking system, recycled into Treasuries or other deposits, thereby limiting the extent of real balance-sheet flight. By their estimate, only approximately 12% of reserves are effectively locked out of lending.

Share

Deposit flight - Competing Estimates

Banking industry position

$6.6T in potential deposit migration modeled across the entire U.S. deposit base under aggressive long-term adoption scenarios (Treasury analysis, no specified time horizon). ICBA separately estimates $1.3T in near-term losses for community banks, specifically $850B in reduced lending. Senior executives at JPMorgan and Bank of America argue that stablecoin yields, without bank-equivalent regulation and FDIC insurance requirements, create an uneven playing field and systemic deposit risk.

White House CEA position

Eliminating stablecoin yield lifts bank lending by ~$2.1B, approximately 0.02% of total loans. Most stablecoin reserves recycle within the banking system via Treasuries and deposits, limiting real balance-sheet flight to approximately 12% of reserves. A yield prohibition imposes net welfare costs on consumers with minimal benefit from lending. Stablecoin balances are structurally distinct from bank deposits and should not be regulated as equivalent.

The empirical gap between these positions has not been closed. What is clear is that the deposit flight question will shape how stablecoin yield is regulated for years, and the answer is being contested simultaneously in Congress, in regulatory filings, and in the White House's own economic analysis, as the legislation moves toward a vote. For anyone building, allocating, or advising in this space, that unresolved empirical uncertainty is itself a material consideration.

The CLARITY Act passed the House 294-134 in July 2025 with bipartisan support.^[6] By the time it reached the Senate Banking Committee, the stablecoin yield question had become the load-bearing issue. The American Bankers Association made opposing yield-bearing stablecoins its primary policy priority. JPMorgan and its peers lobbied accordingly.

On January 14, 2026, hours before the Senate Banking Committee was scheduled to mark up the bill, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, publicly posted that Coinbase could not support the legislation as written.^[8] The committee postponed immediately. Stablecoin-related revenue represented approximately 20% of Coinbase's total revenue in the third quarter of 2025. That context is worth holding alongside Armstrong's stated objections about regulatory fairness.

Davos followed two weeks later. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal,^[9] Dimon interrupted a coffee meeting Armstrong was having with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, told Armstrong he was "full of s—," and objected to television appearances in which Armstrong had accused banks of working behind the scenes to undermine the legislation. Bank of America's Brian Moynihan told Armstrong that if Coinbase wanted to offer deposit-like products, it should be a bank. Wells Fargo's Charlie Scharf declined to engage. Citigroup's Jane Fraser, whose institution maintained an active banking relationship with Coinbase, gave him under a minute before the conversation ended.

The Davos confrontation made the conflict legible to a general audience. The conflict itself had been building for eighteen months.

In March, Dimon told CNBC that platforms paying yield on stablecoin balances should face bank-equivalent regulation: "If you are going to be holding balances and paying interest, that's a bank and you should be regulated as a bank."^[10] The White House pushed back within 24 hours. Patrick Witt, executive director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, wrote publicly that Dimon's framing was "deliberately inaccurate," arguing that the GENIUS Act already prohibits stablecoin issuers from lending reserves, which is what makes bank-level regulation appropriate for deposit-taking institutions, and that stablecoin balances should not be treated as equivalent to bank deposits.^[11]

On March 20th, Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks announced an agreement in principle: passive stablecoin yield, earned simply for holding a dollar-pegged token, would be banned; activity-based rewards tied to payments and transactions would be permitted.[12] When draft text circulated among crypto industry leaders in closed-door Capitol Hill sessions days later, Circle fell 20% in a single session, wiping $5.6 billion in market value.[13]

Armstrong, whose January post withdrawing Coinbase's support had been enough to halt the Senate Banking Committee markup entirely, had not commented publicly on the March text.On April 1st, Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, told Fox Business the stablecoin yield dispute was "very close to a deal," adding that there had been "no evidence of deposit flight whatsoever" to support the banking industry's core argument.[15] Nine days later, Armstrong reversed course entirely. Following a public statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging Congress to act, Armstrong wrote: "We agree. Thank you Scott Bessent for saying it. It's time to pass the Clarity Act."[16] The silence had ended. Whether the deal it reflects holds through the markup is the remaining question.

The shareholder letter arrived on April 6th, the same week Armstrong reversed course, and Coinbase signaled it could accept the legislative framework the banking industry had largely shaped. In it, Dimon named tokenization a competitive threat alongside Block, Revolut, and Stripe. That framing matters because it is not the language of a bank exploring a new market. It is the language of a bank that has already been building in one.

Kinexys is JPMorgan’s blockchain-based payments and settlement platform, launched in 2020 as Onyx and rebranded in 2024. It enables near-instant fund transfers between institutional clients without relying on traditional intermediaries, settling transactions across currencies, time zones, and asset types in real time. It currently processes over $2 billion in daily transaction volume, is targeting $10 billion in daily transaction volume, and counts BlackRock, Siemens, Mitsubishi, and Qatar National Bank among its clients.[14] The platform is expanding into private credit and real estate tokenization. This is production infrastructure, not a proof of concept.

Read in that sequence, the shareholder letter is not the beginning of JPMorgan’s position on tokenization. It is its most formal and permanent expression, filed with shareholders, on the record, the week the regulatory fight it had been waging moved toward the outcome the banking industry sought.

Leave a comment

What The Week Confirmed

The macro picture and the infrastructure story are connected in a way that most coverage missed.

If Dimon is right that inflation stays stickier than markets expect, the cost of capital for tokenization infrastructure builders increases alongside rates. If he is right that private credit standards have been quietly weakening, the assets most often cited as tokenization candidates, private credit instruments among them, become harder to originate and more complex to underwrite at scale. The letter’s cautious macro frame is not background noise for the blockchain passage. It is the operating environment in which that infrastructure will have to prove itself.

The CLARITY Act is not resolved. The Senate Banking Committee markup is targeted for the second half of April. Senator Bernie Moreno has stated that if the bill does not reach the Senate floor by May, crypto legislation risks going dark until after the midterm cycle.^[12] Five sequential legislative hurdles remain. The debate over the deposit flight, now with competing empirical estimates from the banking industry and the White House’s own economists, will continue to frame those negotiations regardless of which number proves closer to reality.

What the week confirmed is something simpler…

That is worth understanding clearly, whatever you think of the outcome.

Sources

Complete footnotes [1]–[16]

[1] Jamie Dimon, 2025 Annual Letter to Shareholders — JPMorganChase, April 6, 2026

[2] Dimon warns Iran war may drive inflation and interest rates higher — Reuters, April 6, 2026

[3] JPMorgan Succession And Tech Push Reshape Valuation — Simply Wall St via Yahoo Finance, April 10, 2026

[4] Why Coinbase split with a16z on the CLARITY Act — Fortune, January 21, 2026

[5] Average savings account interest rate — Bankrate survey of 500+ institutions, April 14, 2026; FDIC national average 0.39% APY per FDIC data

[6] What Is the CLARITY Act — FinTech Weekly, 2026 ($6.6T Treasury analysis cited; long-term aggressive adoption scenario across full U.S. deposit base, no specified time horizon)

[7] White House study finds limited risk to banks from stablecoin yields — The Block, April 8, 2026 (ICBA $1.3T near-term community bank estimate; White House CEA $2.1B base case)

[8] Crypto bill on knife’s edge as Coinbase CEO objects — Fortune, January 14, 2026

[9] Armstrong snubbed by bank executives in Davos — CoinDesk citing WSJ (Ramkumar, Tokar, Heeb), January 30, 2026

[10] Dimon: crypto industry should be regulated like banks — DL News, March 3, 2026

[11] White House counters Dimon stablecoin yield logic — The Block, March 4, 2026

[12] CLARITY Act Unblocked: Stablecoin Yield Compromise Reached — Disruption Banking, March 22, 2026

[13] CLARITY Act: Banks Still Winning on Stablecoin Yield — FinTech Weekly, March 2026

[14] Dimon sees new competitors from blockchain, stablecoins — Cointelegraph, April 6, 2026

[15] Coinbase CLO Paul Grewal: CLARITY Act stablecoin yield deal “very close” — The Block, April 1, 2026. https://www.theblock.co/post/396170/coinbase-clo-grewal-clarity-act-very-close

[16] Coinbase CEO Armstrong backs CLARITY Act after Treasury Secretary Bessent call to act — GNCrypto citing Armstrong X post, April 10, 2026. https://www.gncrypto.news/news/coinbase-ceo-armstrong-backs-clarity-act-treasury-call-stablecoin-rules

Reference (observational, not primary): Jamie Dimon’s Annual Letter Is A Subtle Warning — QTR Fringe Finance, April 6, 2026

Here's the short version of what this piece is about. The US is building financial infrastructure for tokenized assets at a pace that outpaces the legal and regulatory frameworks meant to govern it. The legislation everyone is watching - the CLARITY Act - addresses some of that gap. It leaves the most structurally consequential constraints entirely untouched. What follows is a map of those constraints, their costs across different types of participants, and what catching up actually requires beyond the bill dominating the conversation. If you work in private equity, venture capital, wealth management, or institutional finance and are trying to understand what the regulatory picture actually means for decisions being made right now, this piece is written with you in mind.

That observation brings into focus something this hearing, and likely future hearings, won’t be able to address on their own. The challenge facing tokenization isn’t rooted exclusively in the fact that Congress is slow, regulators are hostile, or institutional capital is reluctant.

From the beginning, financial oversight in the United States was architected for a world where innovation happened inside the regulated intermediaries that govern monetary movement, assets, and debts, specifically banks, broker-dealers, and exchanges, entities that could be supervised, examined, and held accountable through existing frameworks. I've explored both the trust dynamics and the infrastructure constraints behind this in depth across two earlier pieces: “Are We Undervaluing RWAs by Thinking Too Narrowly?” and “Tokenization, Legacy Cores, and the Next Financial Revolution.”

The monolithic cores that have long protected their own architecture have done so at the expense of the structural change needed to move toward atomic settlement, and with it, the broader possibilities that architecture makes accessible. These include tokenized issuance-based product strategies such as real-time portfolio, distributed fractional ownership, and other mechanisms that open asset classes to participants the current system structurally excludes, as well as share-of-wallet dynamics that shift when settlement is no longer a barrier to participation.

That moment is now upon us. Protocol layers beyond those intermediaries are doing meaningful work, but until oversight can keep pace with the revisions the market requires, guidance, exemptive relief, and iterative rulemaking will only ever address symptoms. That brings into focus the underlying mismatch between a framework built for intermediaries and a market that has moved beyond them.

That distinction has direct consequences for everyone making decisions right now. Founders calibrating timelines and deployments, institutions evaluating counterparties, and advisors explaining products to clients are all operating on the assumption that regulatory clarity is needed and forthcoming. The first part of that assumption is correct. The second depends entirely on which constraint you’re looking at, and for several of the most consequential ones, the current legislative architecture is not capable of delivering resolution on any near-term timeline.

Subscribe now

So What Did the Hearing Actually Confirm?

The March 25th, 2026, session put two things on the record that matter, and it’s worth being specific about what they were and weren’t.

Chairman French Hill described tokenization as a structural transformation in how securities are issued, traded, and recorded, the first time a committee chair has placed that characterization formally into the congressional record. The acknowledgment was bipartisan, which means the political cover for inaction is shrinking. Six months ago, neither of those things was true. For anyone watching this space, that’s meaningful progress.

What the hearing didn’t do was address the constraints that actually determine how fast this market grows and who gets to participate. Most of those constraints don’t live in the same legislative lane as the CLARITY Act. Understanding which ones the bill touches and which ones it doesn’t is more useful right now than tracking its Senate floor prospects.

TEFRA - The Elephant in the Room

The largest asset class in the world is bonds. Tokenizing them at scale in the US has a specific legal problem that predates crypto by four decades, sits in tax law rather than securities law, and isn’t addressed by any bill currently moving through Congress. That problem is TEFRA, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, and it’s the constraint that received almost no public attention after the hearing despite being named directly in testimony.

Congress wrote TEFRA to prevent bearer bond abuse. Forty-four years later, it inadvertently prohibits tokenized bond issuance on permissionless public blockchains, because peer-to-peer wallet transfers are functionally indistinguishable from bearer instruments under its current language. Whatever the policy intent, the enforcement outcome is concrete: denial of interest deductions, excise taxes at issuance, reclassification of capital gains as ordinary income, and 30% withholding on interest payments regardless of where the investor is based.”

If your fixed-income tokenization architecture routes transfers between self-custodied wallets on a permissionless public chain, has your tax counsel specifically analyzed that transfer mechanism against TEFRA's definition of a bearer instrument, not just your securities counsel against registration requirements? Those are different reviews addressing different statutory frameworks, and a clean securities-law analysis does not clear your TEFRA exposure. When your cap table or institutional partners ask about regulatory risk, is TEFRA in that conversation? If it isn't, the more important question is whether it's absent because it was analyzed and resolved, or because nobody on either side of the table knew to look for it.

The global bond market represents $145.1 trillion in outstanding fixed-income securities, per the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's 2025 Capital Markets Fact Book, a figure cited directly in Salman Banaei's testimony before the Committee on March 25. The United States holds the largest share at $58.2 trillion, or 40.1% of the global total. The European Union holds $26.2 trillion at 18%, the United Kingdom $6.1 trillion at 4.2%, and Singapore $804.7 billion at 0.6%. Those are not small peripheral markets. The EU alone holds nearly half the US share of global bond debt. All three are actively building regulatory frameworks to capture tokenized bond issuance. The reason the US isn't leading that development despite holding the world's largest bond market isn't technology or institutional appetite. It's a 1982 tax statute that nobody in the current legislative conversation has a vehicle to fix.

It's worth addressing a recent development that might appear to complicate this picture. The New Hampshire Business Finance Authority's bitcoin-backed bond, which received a provisional Ba2 rating from Moody's, doesn't change the TEFRA analysis. That structure routes through a traditional state conduit issuer with bitcoin held in custody by BitGo as collateral. It is a traditional bond backed by crypto, not a tokenized bond issued on a permissionless public blockchain with peer-to-peer wallet transfers between self-custodied wallets. TEFRA's bearer instrument problem is triggered by the latter, not the former. What the New Hampshire deal actually illustrates is the workaround: you can bring crypto into the bond market by routing it through traditional infrastructure. That is precisely the needle-threading dynamic this piece describes elsewhere, and it underscores rather than resolves the structural gap TEFRA creates for permissionless chain issuance.

When you evaluate a tokenized fixed-income product, does your due diligence process include a review of the issuance structure against TEFRA, or does it stop at custody standards, securities classification, and AML compliance? A clean custody and securities analysis doesn't tell you whether the issuer has a TEFRA problem. It tells you about a different set of risks entirely.

Banaei named it directly in his testimony. It got almost no coverage afterward, partly because it doesn’t fit the CLARITY Act narrative that dominates this space, and partly because it falls under tax law rather than securities law, putting it entirely outside the committee’s jurisdiction. Worth noting that Banaei testified as General Counsel of Plume Network, the same infrastructure layer behind the payroll pilot described earlier in this piece, which means the firm making the case for TEFRA reform at the congressional level is also the one demonstrating what compliant tokenization looks like in practice when TEFRA isn’t the blocking constraint. A statutory barrier material enough to affect the competitiveness of US fixed-income markets sits in a different legislative lane than the bill everyone is watching, and nobody is coordinating the two lanes. That’s a capacity failure, and it’s exactly what observations following the congressional hearing have pointed to.

The practical question for anyone in this space isn’t whether TEFRA gets fixed. It’s whether your current architecture assumes it already has been, and what that assumption is currently costing you in both directions.

The defensive cost is proximate. For founders, TEFRA exposure is most likely to surface during institutional due diligence or a fundraising process, at the moment when an architecture rebuild is most disruptive and most visible to the counterparties whose confidence you’ve spent months building. For institutions, the denial of the portfolio interest exemption triggers 30% withholding on interest payments regardless of investor residence, and if your fund has non-US limited partners receiving yield from a TEFRA-exposed tokenized bond product, that obligation doesn’t stay with the issuer. For advisors, the cost is the client conversation that follows a restructuring or an unexpected tax consequence, where the honest answer to “why didn’t you flag this?” is that the statutory risk was never part of your review process. That conversation is recoverable once.

The opportunity cost runs in the other direction. A founder who can demonstrate a TEFRA-clean structure specifically and technically to a major fixed-income asset manager is in a different conversation than one who can’t, and that’s a distribution conversation, not a compliance one. Institutions that develop a TEFRA-specific evaluation framework now are the ones that can move quickly when TEFRA-clean fixed-income tokenization reaches allocatable scale. For advisors, understanding TEFRA’s implications isn’t a defensive capability. It’s the basis for a substantively different conversation with clients, one where you can explain which structures are clean, which aren’t, and why that distinction matters, before the client finds an advisor who can.

Singapore, the UK, and the EU are not waiting for the US to coordinate its legislative lanes. The firms that understand the specific constraints operating in that window are the ones that will still be in the room when it closes.

Share

The CLARITY Act Situation Has Gotten More Complicated

Since last week’s piece was published, there are four things worth bringing to the surface.

1. The stablecoin yield text survived recess unrevised

The Senate went into Easter recess on March 30th, 2026, with the stablecoin yield text unrevised, despite expectations that a compromise draft would emerge before the break. As FinTech Weekly reported, the bill entered the April 13 return carrying bank-friendly yield language that Coinbase and Stripe have both formally objected to. The text bans passive yield on stablecoin balances, permits only narrowly defined activity-based rewards, and gives the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury twelve months to define what counts as permissible.

Since then, the picture has shifted. On April 1st, 2026, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, described negotiations as “very close to a deal” - the most significant public signal of movement since January. Behind the scenes, senators are expected to release revised final text this week, per Crypto In America, detailing how crypto firms can offer activity-based rewards without triggering deposit flight from banks. Whether that text resolves Coinbase’s core objection or simply narrows the gap remains to be seen. As Elliptic noted, the compromise has met mixed reviews from the crypto industry, and stablecoin yield is not the only outstanding issue - Senate Democrats are still pushing for ethics language barring government officials and their families from crypto-related conflicts of interest.

2. The White House no longer has a crypto czar, but Sacks hasn't left entirely

David Sacks confirmed on March 26 that his 130-day term as White House AI and crypto czar has expired. He is not disappearing from the administration entirely - he is moving to co-chair PCAST alongside Michael Kratsios, retaining a direct line to the President on technology policy. Patrick Witt, who served as Executive Director of the White House Crypto Council under Sacks, also remains in position.

But the distinction between the two roles matters. PCAST produces reports and recommendations. It does not negotiate legislative text with Senate staff or broker compromises between banking lobbyists and crypto executives in closed-door Capitol Hill sessions. The most consequential stretch of digital asset legislation in years now moves without a dedicated White House operational advocate driving it from inside the administration -and as Unchained reported, Sacks’ departure closes a tenure that reshaped the federal government’s posture toward digital assets but left its biggest deliverables unfinished.

3. The advisory infrastructure that remains tells its own story

As FinTech Weekly reported, Marc Andreessen and Fred Ehrsam - both of whom publicly backed the CLARITY Act in January despite the stablecoin yield restrictions, at the moment when Coinbase's withdrawal threatened to collapse the bill - are PCAST members.

Ehrsam co-founded Coinbase but left in 2017 and now runs Paradigm, one of the largest crypto-native venture capital firms. His position on the bill reflects portfolio-wide benefits from regulatory clarity rather than Coinbase's specific revenue exposure to the yield restriction. Brian Armstrong is not on PCAST. The President's senior technology advisory structure is now populated by the faction that accepted the bank-friendly yield compromise as the price of a broader legislative framework, and as FinTech Weekly noted, a Coinbase whose second objection has cost it significant political capital it spent years building inside Washington, enters the April markup window in a weaker negotiating position than it held in January. When April's markup negotiations resume, the starting position is not neutral. It is the draft that survived recess unrevised.

4. The timeline is compressing, and the bill is picking up political baggage

Senator Lummis has confirmed the markup is targeted for the second half of April, with the weeks of April 13th and April 20th as the only remaining windows before Senator Moreno’s deadline. His warning is still on the record: miss the Senate floor by May, and digital asset legislation may not move again for years. The community bank deregulation attachment adds another layer of complexity. As FinTech Weekly reported, Senate Banking Republicans are discussing attaching community bank deregulatory provisions to the bill in exchange for the House accepting the Senate’s housing package, pulling it into a negotiation that has nothing to do with tokenization. American Banker confirmed on April 1st that House Financial Services Chairman French Hill has personally flagged this dynamic, noting that two of his primary pieces of legislation on digital assets and housing remain blocked in the Senate - underscoring that the political trade is real and compressing an already narrow timeline.

The stablecoin yield impasse is worth reading as an illustration of the capacity problem rather than a separate political dispute. Stablecoins are simultaneously yield-bearing instruments and payment instruments, and the legislative architecture was built for a world where those were distinct categories. Both sides are making coherent arguments within their own frameworks. Whatever compromise eventually emerges will be a workaround negotiated within an inadequate framework, not a resolution of the underlying structural mismatch. The impasse persists in its current form precisely because the framework lacks a mechanism to resolve it cleanly.

Leave a comment

What Compliance by Needle-Threading Actually Tells Us

This week produced a concrete example of what working within these constraints looks like for a well-resourced team. Plume, Toku, and WisdomTree announced the first payroll pilot using a tokenized money market fund, WTGXX, as a compensation delivery mechanism. Employees can elect to receive a portion of their salary in tokenized fund shares that begin earning yield from the day of payment, without touching crypto exchanges or purchasing digital assets directly.

It works. And it works because every layer routes through an existing regulated wrapper: WisdomTree Digital Trust Company, chartered as a limited purpose trust company by the New York State Department of Financial Services; its federally registered money services business and NMLS registration; its prospectus disclosures for WTGXX; its AML-verified WisdomTree Prime wallet infrastructure; and its established eligibility requirements for account holders. As Toku CEO Ken O’Friel put it:

“Every payroll provider in the last 30 years has improved the UI and UX, but they’re all built on the same legacy financial infrastructure that hasn’t changed since the 1970s.”

The pilot shows that tokenization can add real utility within existing frameworks, specifically yield from the moment compensation is paid, without disrupting how payroll runs. It also shows that doing this compliantly requires assembling a multi-entity regulated infrastructure stack that only well-resourced firms with established institutional relationships can build. The broader market that the hearing was nominally about doesn’t have access to that stack. A framework that operates through needle-threading by sophisticated actors is not designed to govern the market at scale.

What This Means for the Decisions Being Made Now

For founders and builders

The constraints requiring separate Congressional action, specifically TEFRA, Basel capital surcharges applying a 1,250% risk weight to permissionless blockchain assets, and stablecoin settlement infrastructure, will not be resolved by CLARITY Act passage, even in the most optimistic scenario.

Has your architecture been stress-tested against Basel’s 1,250% risk-weight treatment for permissionless blockchain assets specifically? That constraint affects whether the banks and institutional counterparties you’re building toward can participate in your market at all without a capital hit that makes participation commercially unviable. If they can’t hold your asset without a punitive capital charge, your distribution strategy has a structural ceiling that no amount of product quality resolves.

On stablecoin settlement: if your tokenized product requires a cash leg for on-chain settlement, which stablecoin serves that function, under what regulatory classification, and what happens to your settlement architecture if pending legislation reclassifies the instrument you’re currently using? Have you modeled that scenario, or is your settlement assumption built on the current state of a market that is actively being legislated?

On operational readiness: if your product implies real-time settlement, does your compliance, reporting, and risk infrastructure actually operate at that speed? Settlement compression changes when compliance obligations, margin calls, and counterparty exposure calculations are completed, not just when assets move. If your back-office infrastructure was built for T+1 or T+2 cycles, the gap between that and what your product promises creates operational risk within your architecture, regardless of how clean your legal structure is.

The founders who will define institutional-grade tokenization infrastructure are the ones who can answer those questions specifically. The bill matters. It doesn’t resolve your constraint stack.

For institutions

Sandy Kaul’s taxonomy covering synthetic exposure tokens, digitally native structures, and digital twin models remains a more operationally useful due diligence lens than tracking the CLARITY Act’s Senate prospects, because it maps directly to where ownership rights, settlement finality, and counterparty exposure actually land in each structure. For the full original analysis, see Kaul’s Detangling Tokenization of RWAs, published March 24th, 2026. Worth noting that Kaul’s is one of several classification frameworks now in use.

The joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release published March 17th, 2026, uses a five-category taxonomy that includes digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities, which are organized around regulatory jurisdiction rather than ownership structure. For the purpose of this article and the proceeding applications, we use Kaul’s here because ownership rights and settlement mechanics are where the due diligence questions that matter most to institutional allocators actually live.

The model determines the failure mode, the custody obligation, and the recourse available if the structure fails. Knowing which model you’re in is the starting point, not the conclusion.

For synthetic exposure tokens: what is the SPV structure underlying this token, who controls it, under what jurisdiction is it governed, and what is the redemption mechanism if the issuing entity faces liquidity stress? On-chain settlement finality doesn’t eliminate the off-chain settlement timeline of the underlying asset. If the underlying asset settles T+1 or T+2 and your on-chain representation shows immediate finality, that gap is counterparty exposure you are carrying, whether or not your reporting reflects it.

For digital twin structures: what batch settlement cycle governs the authoritative off-chain record, and what happens to your position during the window between a token transfer on-chain and the corresponding update in the off-chain ledger? That window is an interval of ownership ambiguity, and under stress, ownership ambiguity in fixed-income markets has historically been where losses have concentrated.

For digitally native structures: if the token is permissioned, what happens to your position if a wallet verification lapses, a counterparty fails a KYC refresh, or the permissioning infrastructure experiences an outage? The composability you gave up for regulatory alignment comes at a cost that only becomes visible under pressure.

Two infrastructure questions apply across all three models. First, counterparty concentration: if the product relies on a single oracle network for its reference price, what happens to NAV calculation, margin calls, and redemption mechanics if that oracle experiences an outage or manipulation? Infrastructure concentration risk doesn’t surface in standard securities due diligence, and doesn’t disappear because the product has a clean legal structure.

Second, cross-jurisdictional enforceability: under which legal framework is ownership determined in a dispute when the product involves issuers, custodians, or counterparties across multiple jurisdictions? UCC Article 12 governs digital asset ownership in adopting states, but adoption is uneven, and its interaction with non-US frameworks remains largely untested. Has your legal team mapped that for each product you hold?

For advisors and wealth managers

The most immediate gap is between what clients believe they own in a tokenized product and what the underlying legal structure actually provides. This isn’t a new problem. MF Global filed for bankruptcy on October 31, 2011, the eighth largest in US history, with a $1.6 billion shortfall in customer funds legally required to be held in segregated accounts. As a Congressional investigation found, customers correctly understood the risks of their trading activity. What they didn’t anticipate was that the segregated accounts protecting them were themselves at risk. The legal requirement existed. The protection it was supposed to provide did not.

Tokenization doesn’t create that failure mode. Depending on the model, it inherits it or amplifies it, and in synthetic structures, the gap between on-chain presentation and legal reality can be harder to see coming than it was for MF Global’s customers.

If a client holds a synthetic exposure token and the issuing SPV faces redemption pressure, what is their actual position in the redemption queue, and is that documented in the product disclosure they received? If the redemption mechanics are under stress and aren’t clearly disclosed, that is a gap in your due diligence process, not the client’s understanding.

If a client holds a digital twin token and asks what they own, can you explain which record governs in a dispute, the on-chain token or the off-chain ownership record, and under what legal framework? If your answer relies on the on-chain representation, you are explaining a receipt rather than an ownership right.

If a client asks whether their tokenized product is covered by SIPC, FDIC, or any equivalent protection, do you know the answer for the specific model and custody structure? The answer varies by model, custodian, and jurisdiction, and “I’ll find out” is not a sustainable posture for a product category your clients are increasingly asking about.

For internationally mobile clients or those with cross-border estate planning considerations: how are their tokenized products treated under each relevant jurisdiction’s property and succession law? The gap between what an on-chain position shows and what a foreign court would recognize as an enforceable claim is largely untested. That’s an estate-planning risk sitting inside products presented as simple and accessible.

On reporting: can your infrastructure reflect your client’s tokenized positions accurately enough to explain their holdings, yield accrual, and exposure at any point on any given day? If your reporting runs on T+1 or end-of-day cycles and the product accrues yield continuously, there is a gap between what your reporting shows and what your client actually holds. That gap is manageable until a client asks a specific question at the moment the gap is widest, which is usually when markets are moving.

Advisors who build the capability to answer these questions specifically and in advance are building a durable practice in a market early enough that the capability is genuinely differentiating. The ones who don’t are carrying client relationship risk that surfaces at the worst possible moment: when the client needs the answer, and the market is under stress.

Share The RWA Ledger

What Catching Up Actually Requires

Observations and commentary following the congressional hearing frame this as a gap between where legislation is and where it needs to be. The bills currently in motion, the CLARITY Act, the two draft bills from the March 25 hearing, and the PARITY Act, address jurisdiction, market structure, and recordkeeping. They are necessary. They are not sufficient.

Worth noting that the PARITY Act has moved meaningfully since the hearing. On March 26, Representatives Miller and Horsford released an updated discussion draft with significant revisions and stated their intention to formally introduce it as legislation this spring. The updated draft addresses stablecoin tax treatment, income deferral for staking and mining, wash-sale rules, and mark-to-market accounting for traders. That is genuinely useful progress on digital asset tax clarity. It does not touch TEFRA.

Modern legislation capable of governing this market would need to address three fronts not currently covered by any active legislative vehicle.

The First Gap - TEFRA

The first is TEFRA. As FinTech Weekly reported in its analysis of Larry Fink’s 2026 shareholder letter, no regulator can fix TEFRA by interpretation. It requires Congress to amend the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to recognize distributed ledgers meeting prescribed standards as valid bond registers. That task is not in the CLARITY Act. It is not in the PARITY Act, which addresses digital asset tax treatment in a different part of the tax code - stablecoin exemptions, staking deferral, and wash sale rules - and does not address the bearer-instrument provisions that make permissionless chain-bond issuance legally precarious. It is not in either of the draft bills from the March 25th hearing.

But here are a few questions worth ruminating on even after that amendment passes:

What does cross-jurisdictional tax treatment look like for tokenized bonds held by foreign investors under a reformed framework - specifically, does IRC amendment on distributed ledger recognition interact cleanly with the portfolio interest exemption that currently triggers 30% withholding?

How do state UCC Article 12 adoptions interact with a federal IRC amendment when the two frameworks were written without reference to each other? Debatably a question that has become more concrete since New York signed Article 12 into law on December 5, 2025, effective June 3rd, 2026 - the largest financial jurisdiction in the US now operates under a state digital asset ownership framework that has no federal IRC counterpart addressing the same instruments.

When does the tax event on a token transfer actually occur under reformed IRS guidance - at on-chain confirmation, at the off-chain record update, or at some other point in a settlement cycle that no longer maps cleanly onto either? The PARITY Act's updated draft, released March 26th, addresses stablecoin exemptions and staking deferral. It does not address settlement timing for tokenized bond transfers.

TEFRA reform opens the second layer of questions the market isn’t asking yet, the second is Basel.

The Second Gap: Basel

The second is Basel. The Basel Committee’s 1,250% risk weight on permissionless blockchain assets has moved from a future constraint to an active regulatory proposal. On March 19, 2026, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC formally proposed implementing the final phase of Basel III, retaining the 1,250% risk weight for permissionless blockchain assets, with a public comment period running through June 18, 2026. The Bank of England has delayed its own implementation to January 2027 to watch how US rulemaking develops, while Hong Kong and Canada implemented the standard on January 1, 2026, and the EU has partially implemented it. The Basel Committee itself has endorsed a targeted review of the cryptoasset standards, but that process is international and slow.

The practical constraint for anyone building tokenized fixed-income infrastructure on permissionless chains is that the 90-day comment period is the only near-term window to influence the US final rule's treatment of these assets. If the final rule retains the 1,250% weight without carving out tokenized traditional assets from pure crypto exposures, bank participation in permissionless chain tokenization remains commercially unviable regardless of what the CLARITY Act resolves. And if the US final rule diverges from Hong Kong’s already-implemented standard, cross-border tokenized fixed-income positions face differing capital treatment depending on which side of the transaction the bank sits on. Regulatory arbitrage in that environment is a structuring incentive, and structuring incentives in fixed-income markets have a documented history of producing concentrations of risk in places the framework wasn’t designed to see.

The Third Gap: Stablecoin Settlement Infrastructure

The GENIUS Act addressed stablecoin issuance and reserve requirements. Its implementation is now underway: the OCC’s proposed rule establishing a comprehensive supervisory framework for payment stablecoins has a comment deadline of May 1, 2026, and the Treasury formally initiated the GENIUS Act rollout on April 1, opening a 30-day registration window for existing issuers. The GENIUS Act also formally specifies that non-compliant stablecoins cannot serve as settlement assets for wholesale payments between banking organizations. What the GENIUS Act does not address is the structural question of what happens to atomic settlement when the cash leg itself is under stress.

Traditional T+1 and T+2 settlement cycles create float - a buffer between trade execution and final settlement that the entire architecture of traditional finance depends on. That window allows positions to be netted, collateral to be moved, margin calls to be met, and liquidity to be sourced before final obligations fall due. Clearinghouses, custodians, and banks all operate within that buffer. It is not inefficiency. It is a structural shock absorber built into how capital moves.

Atomic settlement removes that buffer entirely. When a trade settles instantaneously, every obligation - compliance verification, liquidity provision, counterparty confirmation, collateral posting - must be met at the moment of execution rather than distributed across a settlement cycle. The liquidity that the float window provided as a natural cushion must now be pre-positioned or instantly available. That is a fundamentally different risk architecture, and it hasn’t been stress-tested at an institutional scale under adverse conditions.

The 2023 USDC depeg illustrates one version of what adverse conditions look like for the cash leg. After Circle revealed it had nearly 8% of its $40 billion in reserves tied up at Silicon Valley Bank, USDC fell below 87 cents - a drop of more than 13 cents - over the weekend when primary market redemptions were constrained by the working hours of the US banking system.

The irony is precise: the banking infrastructure that atomic settlement is designed to move beyond was the only mechanism available to restore the peg. A regulated stablecoin with reserve requirements wouldn’t have prevented that event. It changes who bears the loss and under what framework.

The Fed is currently considering limited payment rail access for federally regulated stablecoin issuers - a “skinny” master account that would allow direct clearing and settlement in central bank money. That proposal is still under consideration. If on-chain settlement is atomic and the regulated stablecoin serving as the cash leg is simultaneously experiencing a redemption event, the settlement finality that the infrastructure promised and the liquidity the cash leg can deliver are no longer aligned. The float window that would have provided time to resolve that mismatch no longer exists. Has the legislation been written to govern this modeled scenario?

The Question That Stays Open

And then there is the question that survives even the best-case legislative scenario — the one worth sitting with regardless of where you sit in this market.

Consider what moved in the week this piece was written. The GENIUS Act rollout formally began on April 1st. The Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC issued their Basel III re-proposal on March 19th, retaining the 1,250% risk weight with a comment deadline of June 18th. The PARITY Act was updated and formally introduced on March 26. And today, April 3rd, the IMF published a comprehensive policy roadmap for integrating tokenized assets into the global financial architecture, with a core principle that “same activity, same risk, same regulation” must apply to tokenized versions of traditional securities. That is the right principle. It is also precisely what the current legislative stack - the CLARITY Act, PARITY Act, implementation of the GENIUS Act, and the two draft bills from March 25th, 2026 - cannot deliver, because the constraint stack spans tax law, prudential capital standards, and settlement infrastructure across jurisdictions that are not coordinating their responses.

Financial regulation has historically been built after the fact. Frameworks calibrated to the last crisis, applied to the next market, administered through oversight architectures designed for a world where innovation happened inside intermediaries that kept regular hours and filed regular reports. Tokenization is building infrastructure that is programmable, composable, and operates continuously across jurisdictions, without the natural pause points that traditional regulatory cycles depend on. The oversight framework being constructed around it is still episodic, jurisdiction-specific, and intermediary-dependent.

So the question that stays open after everything currently proposed passes is this: are we building a modern regulatory framework for tokenization, or are we building the most sophisticated version of a framework whose architecture was designed for a market that no longer exists? And if the answer is the latter, who bears the cost of that mismatch, and when does it become visible?

The answer to the last question is already known from the historical pattern. In every prior innovation cycle, the cost of framework mismatch concentrated farthest from the decision-making - in the clients who didn’t understand what they owned, the institutions that priced risk incorrectly because the framework didn’t require them to price it correctly, and the intermediaries who bore reputational costs for gaps in due diligence processes that nobody told them to build. The legislative activity of the past week confirms that Washington is engaged. It does not confirm that the architecture of oversight is being rebuilt for the market it is being asked to govern.

Those questions don’t have legislative answers yet. They may not have legislative answers at all in any timeframe the market currently operates on. What they have are the people building, allocating, and advising in this space right now, making architecture decisions that will determine whether their structures survive the moment those questions get answered the hard way.

The original observation holds: a signal for the market overall, and proof that legacy legislation has a long way to catch up. Both parts are correct. The signal is real. The distance is real. And the teams that are honest about how far the catch-up actually needs to go are the ones building on the right foundation for what comes after the bills that are currently moving eventually pass.

The RWA Ledger covers tokenization and the evolution of financial infrastructure toward more verifiable, on-chain systems. This analysis reflects publicly available legislative materials, testimony, market data, and primary sources as of March 31, 2026.

The hearing on Wednesday, March 25th, before the House Financial Services Committee, titled "Tokenization and the Future of Securities: Modernizing Our Capital Markets," made clear that while legislation around tokenized assets is still pending, there is bipartisan consensus that tokenized securities are inevitable. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., put it plainly during the hearing: "No doubt tokenization of securities is coming. It's here, and our modernization of our securities regulation is required, both in terms of preserving that gold standard of investor protection, but also making sure that the United States is leading the way." Wednesday's session also arrived as the SEC prepares to roll out a potential innovation exemption for tokenized assets, with Chairman Paul Atkins confirming the exemption is currently awaiting clearance from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and could be introduced within weeks.

Subscribe now

The Market This Hearing Was Asked to Govern

Going into the hearing, the on-chain RWA market stood at $26.48 billion in distributed value, up 5.25% in the prior 30 days. That number alone, however, obscures something important: not all tokenized products are equal; just as not all entrants who aim to embrace tokenization will make it, they are as structurally different from one another as the firms embarking on offerings of tokenized assets themselves. Much of the nuance those products carry includes specific risk profiles and ownership structures we will get to shortly, but perhaps even more important is the role of distribution channels, partnerships, and integration with keystone players like Franklin Templeton, BlackRock, and other institutional firms that enable a landscape right for opportunity, even when the inevitable cycle turns.

Financial innovation has always carried with it a notorious reputation for spurring booms and busts; looking back at cycles like the Panic of 1873 (railroad speculation), the Great Depression (1929), the 1970s Stagflation (OPEC oil shock), and the Dot-com Bubble (2000–2002), each bust has consistently revealed the asymmetry in who bears the risk at the point of failure rather than at the point of design.

Railroad speculation in 1873 was built on genuine infrastructure with transformative potential; capital poured in, driven in large part by banker Jay Cooke whose firm financed the Northern Pacific Railway, and when the speculation collapsed, culminating in 89 of the country's 364 railroad companies going bankrupt, it triggered a cascade that reached even into Germany, where a parallel speculative bubble-burst became known as the Gründerkrach, or "Founders' Crash."

Fast forward 125 years, and The Dot-com era followed the same structural pattern, with its own version of what we are now watching resurface: IPO mania. Between 1995 and 2000, the Nasdaq index experienced a five-fold increase, peaking in March 2000 before plummeting nearly 77% by October 2002, as companies raised significant capital in public markets despite lacking viable business models, and when investment funds dried up, the reckoning was swift. Amazon, eBay, and Priceline survived; the majority did not.

Today, a similar dynamic is taking shape, call it “Valuation Mania.” This time, driven by AI and crypto, where companies like OpenAI are commanding $730 billion pre-money valuations in private markets ahead of anticipated public listings, and the IPO pipeline for AI infrastructure, fintech, and digital asset companies is among the largest in recent memory, per Barron's. The underlying technology, as in 1873 and 2000, is real; the trajectory is directionally correct; and the timing and valuation assumptions are, once again, the open question, with losses, if they come, most likely to concentrate farthest from the decision-making.

What made each crisis worse was not the innovation itself, but the absence of frameworks capable of distinguishing sustainable adoption from speculative overhang, and the regulatory gap that allowed both to be labeled the same thing.

Even though her sentiments generally fall at party line, and are often disparaging towards innovation, Ranking Member Maxine Waters' remarks carry weight. Referencing the 2008 financial crisis, she cautioned: "Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, we were told that securitization and new financial technologies would make borrowing easier, spread risk, and lift everyone up. What they actually did was allow Wall Street to build a process that legitimized predatory loans, stripped wealth from middle-class homeowners, and created the conditions for the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression;" a parallel worth considering, and one that argues not against tokenization, but for getting the architecture right before the capital scales, which is precisely what the hearing, imperfectly and incompletely, began to do.

Not a Single Category - What the Market Actually Contains

The morning of the hearing, we published On the Ledger No. 001, Sandy Kaul’s institutional breakdown of RWA tokenization, "Revolution—Not Evolution" LinkedIn Newsletter. The specific article in reference is “Detangling Tokenization.” Her central argument is worth carrying directly into this analysis: what is being called tokenization today is not a single category; it is a set of structurally different models, synthetic exposure tokens, digitally native tokenized assets, and digital twin structures, each carrying distinct implications for ownership rights, settlement mechanics, and where the authoritative record of ownership actually resides. Those differences are often obscured at the point of evaluation and become highly visible at the point of failure, precisely the dynamic the historical parallels above describe.

Evaluated through Sandy's taxonomy lens, BlackRock's BUIDL fund, Franklin Templeton's BENJI token, JPMorgan's Kinexys platform, and Circle's on-chain products do not operate on the same model, and they do not carry the same risk profile. Some sit closer to synthetic structures where the token represents a claim on an intermediary; some are digitally native; and some, including the DTCC and NYSE approaches referenced directly by witnesses at the hearing, sit closer to the digital twin end, where the authoritative record remains in traditional financial infrastructure and the token functions as a reference layer above it. These are the products that were implicitly under discussion on Wednesday, and the distinctions between them are not peripheral to the regulatory conversation; they are the regulatory conversation.

Where Settlement Risk, Custody, and Investor Protection Actually Land

There is an understanding that theory is different from practice, and this holds true for settlement risk, custody obligations, and investor protections, which vary depending on the model in use. Current securities law was written without these structures in mind, and the consequences of that gap have already given us a glimpse of what can happen when regulatory frameworks are unprepared to meet the market where it’s at. Celsius Network had approximately 600,000 accounts in its Earn program when it collapsed in 2022. Users believed they held crypto assets; the bankruptcy court found they had transferred full title and ownership to Celsius under the Terms of Use, making them unsecured creditors with a $4.7 billion claim against an estate with a $1.3 billion hole in its balance sheet. The gap between what the on-chain presentation showed and what users actually owned became apparent only after withdrawals were frozen. That is the synthetic-structure failure mode in practice: indirect ownership through an intermediary, the absence of governance rights, and the discovery that settlement finality was assumed rather than guaranteed.

For synthetic structures more broadly, the specific risks include indirect ownership through an intermediary SPV, absence of governance rights, and the gap between apparent on-chain settlement finality and the actual off-chain settlement timeline of the underlying asset - a timing mismatch that introduces counterparty exposure that on-chain presentation does not eliminate. For digitally native structures, the constraints shift to permissioned environments, reduced composability, and integration complexity with existing custody and reporting systems. For digital twin structures, as we noted in our earlier piece on Atomic Settlement, Tokenized Securities, and the SEC, the underlying settlement architecture remains unchanged, meaning tokenization improves the interface without altering the architecture, and the legacy infrastructure constraints do not disappear because a token sits on top of them.

The question that runs underneath all of Wednesday's testimony is this: when regulators, legislators, and institutional operators talk about investor protection in the context of tokenized securities, which tokenization model are they describing? The answer shapes every downstream decision about settlement finality, custody standards, and what recourse actually exists if an underlying structure fails. The Senate Banking Committee markup targeted for late April, the SEC's March 18 approval of Nasdaq's tokenized securities pilot with first trades anticipated by end of Q3 2026, and the joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release published March 17 will all begin to put pressure on these questions — but none of it resolves the structural distinctions Sandy identifies or the legislative gaps the hearing put on the record.

The Constraints the CLARITY Act Won't Touch

The session assembled witnesses across the full institutional spectrum - SIFMA, the Blockchain Association, Nasdaq, DTCC, and Kimber Labs - and that composition alone was a signal: the architects of traditional market plumbing and the builders of new rails were sitting at the same table, making the case to the same committee at the same moment.

The most substantively important testimony came from Salman Banaei of Kimber Labs, and it surfaced a blocker that has received almost no public attention before or since. The stakes, in his own words, were direct: "The question before this Committee is whether American capital markets infrastructure and American regulatory frameworks will channel that demand or whether foreign competitors with different geopolitical objectives will capture it."

TEFRA Enters The Chat

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was written to prevent the issuance of bearer bonds, which were used to facilitate money laundering and tax evasion. Four decades later, it now inadvertently prohibits the issuance of tokenized bonds on any permissionless public blockchain where transfers occur between self-custodied wallets without involvement of a traditional book entry system. Peer-to-peer token transfers are functionally indistinguishable from bearer bonds under TEFRA's current language, and the penalties are consequential: denial of interest deductions, excise taxes at issuance, reclassification of capital gains as ordinary income, and denial of the portfolio interest exemption, exposing interest payments to 30% withholding regardless of the investor's residence.

The global bond market represents over $140 trillion in outstanding debt, per SIFMA's 2026 estimates (Banaei's testimony used the OECD figure of over $100 trillion, which covers a narrower dataset), and the US accounts for approximately $58.2 trillion of that. Singapore, the UK, and the EU are actively building frameworks to capture tokenized bond issuance. An unintended consequence of a 1982 tax statute is one structural reason the US is behind, and it requires separate legislative action from the CLARITY Act entirely. If you are building a tokenization strategy for fixed-income assets on permissionless public chains with self-custodied wallet transfers, have you stress-tested your architecture against TEFRA? The constraint exists now, and building around it requires knowing it exists.

TEFRA is the most underreported statutory barrier, but it sits within a broader stack of structural constraints that explain why the RWA market grows at a measured 5–6% monthly rather than the exponential trajectory some projections have assumed. These constraints fall across three layers, each requiring a different kind of response.

The first layer is statutory. Alongside TEFRA, stablecoin legislation remains in the implementation phase; tokenized securities need a cash leg for settlement, and without a regulated stablecoin or wholesale CBDC, on-chain settlement carries a structural gap regardless of what the CLARITY Act resolves. These gaps require Congressional action, and neither has yet surfaced in any active legislative vehicle beyond what Wednesday's session began to frame.

The second layer is structural market architecture. Basel capital surcharges apply a 1,250% risk weight to permissionless blockchain assets, rendering bank participation in public-chain tokenization commercially unviable without reform. Layered on top of that, liquidity fragmentation across chains creates 1–3% pricing gaps for identical assets and 2–5% friction when moving capital cross-chain, a constraint that compounds as products scale and secondary markets deepen.

The third layer is behavioral. The macroeconomic rate environment has blunted the on-chain value proposition; US money market funds returned 4.2–5.3% annually in 2023–2024 while base stablecoin lending rates clustered lower, narrowing the yield argument for on-chain deployment. More directly, 66% of institutional investors cite regulatory uncertainty as their primary concern when investing in digital assets, and 78% identify market structure specifically as the area most in need of clear regulatory guardrails, per a January 2026 EY-Parthenon and Coinbase survey of 351 institutions. The capital is present and growing — 73% of respondents plan to increase crypto allocations in 2026 — but the frameworks that would give that capital durable confidence are still being assembled.

Although the CLARITY Act, if enacted, could clarify jurisdictional issues, it does not resolve any of the other concerns mentioned above.

The Legislative Stack and the Clock

The CLARITY Act passed the House 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee markup is targeted for late April. Senator Bernie Moreno has set the outer limit plainly: if the bill does not reach the Senate floor by May, digital asset legislation may not advance again for years. The competitive pressure behind that deadline reflects several converging forces: a November 2026 midterm calendar that effectively closes the Senate floor to controversial legislation by August, competing priorities that CoinDesk has reported include the war in Iran and Trump's SAVE America Act demands, and the measurable cost of delay - $952 million in crypto ETP outflows attributed directly to CLARITY Act uncertainty, per CoinShares Head of Research James Butterfill.

The same week as Wednesday's hearing, Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Raghav Chadha introduced a Private Member’s Bill, “The Asset Tokenisation (Regulation) Bill, 2026,” in the Upper House on Friday, aiming to establish a clear legal and regulatory framework for tokenised real-world assets in India. The last time a private member bill was enacted in India was 1970, but it signals policymaking intent in a jurisdiction that has historically exported digital asset activity offshore. Whether it advances or not, it adds to a growing list of jurisdictions, Singapore, the UK, and the EU among them, actively developing frameworks while US statutory clarity remains unresolved.

In parallel, the SEC and CFTC published a joint 68-page interpretive release on March 17th, formally entered into the Federal Register on March 23. The release established a five-category token taxonomy - digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities - and explicitly named 16 crypto assets as digital commodities not subject to securities law. The interpretation carries immediate persuasive authority but does not constitute formal rulemaking or carry the binding force of a statute. Both SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and CFTC Chairman Michael Selig have said publicly that only Congress can provide the statutory foundation, and that they stand ready to implement the CLARITY Act the moment it reaches the President's desk.

Two draft bills surfaced at Wednesday's session and have not yet been formally introduced. The Modernizing Markets Through Tokenization Act of 2026 would require a joint SEC-CFTC study on tokenized derivatives, compelling both agencies to address their jurisdictional standoff. The Capital Markets Technology Modernization Act codifies broker-dealers' right to use blockchain-based record-keeping under existing law. Both are early-stage measures, neither resolves TEFRA, Basel risk weights, or cross-chain liquidity fragmentation, and they are the beginning of an iterative legislative architecture rather than the end of one.

Mersinger's testimony made the case that the SEC already has the tools to support responsible progress through exemptive relief and iterative pathways, and should use them now rather than waiting for a complete statutory framework that may take years to produce. The SEC's March 18 approval of Nasdaq's tokenized securities pilot, with first trades anticipated by end of Q3 2026 pending DTC system readiness, is one indication that some institutions are already moving on that basis.

The Architecture of Survival

The hearing confirmed that tokenization is coming. It did not confirm that every firm currently building in this space will continue to do so as the infrastructure matures. That distinction is worth naming directly, because the historical pattern is consistent on this point: in every prior cycle, the survivors were not the fastest movers. They were the ones who understood which constraints were permanent, which were transitional, and which were political, and built their architecture accordingly.

What positioning actually looks like in this environment is more diagnostic than directional. It starts with knowing which tokenization model you are actually building on or allocating into, because the model determines the failure mode. A synthetic structure that looks liquid in normal markets may expose holders to redemption queues and off-chain settlement delays under stress; a digital twin structure that looks familiar to institutional infrastructure may be constrained by the same batch settlement cycles it was supposed to replace. Distribution matters here in a way that is often underestimated: the firms that built durable institutional channels before the cycle matured - the Franklin Templetons and BlackRocks that deployed early with model integrity and regulatory alignment - will define the benchmark against which later entrants are evaluated.

For founders, the distinction between runway and strategy has never been more consequential. Pets.com raised $82.5 million, ran a Super Bowl ad, and was out of business within nine months. Chewy launched seven years later with a fraction of that capital and sold to PetSmart for $3.35 billion. The runway did not determine the outcome; the architecture did. A firm with eighteen months of runway and a model built on TEFRA-constrained fixed-income tokenization on a permissionless chain has a different problem than one with six months of runway and institutional-grade synthetic exposure with established distribution.

For institutions, the equivalent question is whether the internal review process matches the pace at which counterparties are positioning. The SEC approved Nasdaq's tokenized securities pilot on March 18. NYSE has partnered with Securitize. These are not experiments; they are competitive positioning by the infrastructure layer itself. The firms still running internal feasibility studies are doing so against a market that has already made several decisions about which models and distribution architectures will carry institutional volume.

What Has Actually Changed

The dominant operating assumption before Wednesday was that regulatory clarity unlocks adoption. The hearing put a more accurate framing on the record: regulatory clarity is necessary, but so is tax law modernization on TEFRA, Basel reform on permissionless chains, stablecoin settlement infrastructure, and cross-chain liquidity solutions. None of those gets resolved by a single piece of legislation. The teams calibrating their timelines for CLARITY Act passage should ask which of their constraints the bill actually affects.

What the hearing produced is a formal acknowledgment that the current framework is broken for this market. Chairman French Hill described tokenization as a structural transformation in how securities are issued, traded, and recorded - the first time a committee chair has placed that characterization on the record. The question of whether Washington will engage seriously with this has been answered. The questions of which chain, which settlement mechanism, which regulatory pathway, and which legal structure remain open.

The Questions That Remain

What follows is not a summary. It is a set of questions that the hearing raised without resolving, directed at people for whom the answers are not academic.

For founders and builders: the wait-for-clarity strategy now has a hard deadline attached. Have you audited your architecture against TEFRA, Basel risk weights, and stablecoin settlement assumptions? Resolving TEFRA requires separate Congressional action from the CLARITY Act; it will not be addressed even in the most optimistic legislative scenario. Building around it now is a strategic choice, not a future consideration.

For institutions: the model-level distinctions from Sandy’s taxonomy are a more useful due diligence lens than headline market size. Which model underlies what you are evaluating, and are the ownership rights, settlement finality, and counterparty exposure compatible with your operating framework? The IMF’s warning about composability risk in synthetic structures is not a reason to avoid the market; it is a reason to know exactly which part of it you are in. Are your internal systems capable of executing settlement, compliance, and custody obligations in real time if settlement expectations compress — a dynamic we examined in Atomic Settlement, Tokenized Securities, and the SEC?

For regulators: the iterative pathway is where meaningful near-term progress is most likely, and the joint SEC-CFTC taxonomy release provides both agencies with a foundation to move forward. On TEFRA, the pathway is Congressional - neither agency can address it through guidance or exemptive action alone. The last time a financial innovation cycle outpaced its regulatory framework, the cost was borne by the people furthest from decision-making. That outcome is not inevitable this time; it is a design choice.

For advisors and wealth managers: if a client asks what they own in a tokenized product, the answer depends entirely on which model underlies it. The gaps between on-chain representation and off-chain legal reality are harder to explain than anything traditional wealth management has previously required. In every prior cycle, it was the intermediaries closest to clients who bore the reputational cost of that gap first. The question is whether this time it gets named before it gets discovered.

Less than 0.1% of the world’s assets are currently tokenized. The last time we were told a new financial technology would spread risk more efficiently and democratize access to capital, it did - just not in the direction anyone intended. That does not make tokenization the same story. It makes the architecture of how it gets built the most consequential variable in whether it ends differently.

The RWA Ledger covers tokenization and the evolution of financial infrastructure toward more verifiable, on-chain systems. This briefing reflects analysis based on publicly available hearing materials, testimony, and market data as of March 28, 2026.

A recurring feature from The RWA Ledger that surfaces external research and commentary shaping RWAs and tokenized markets - with our editorial lens applied

Reading: Detangling Tokenization of RWAs by Sandy Kaul, Franklin Templeton (March 24, 2026)

Why this Piece Matters

Sandy Kaul at Franklin Templeton published one of the clearest institutional breakdowns of RWA tokenization we have seen from a traditional asset management voice.

In Detangling Tokenization of RWAs, she identifies three structurally different tokenization models now emerging in the market: synthetic exposure tokens, digitally native tokenized assets, and digital twin structures. Each carries distinct implications for ownership rights, settlement mechanics, and where the authoritative record of ownership actually resides.

That last point is the one most market commentary glosses over.

Much of the current conversation continues to treat tokenized assets as interchangeable. In practice, these three models introduce materially different risk profiles, operational dependencies, and legal considerations, differences that compound as the market scales and institutional participation deepens. They determine what is actually owned, how transactions settle, and what recourse exists if the underlying structure fails.

What is being described as tokenization today is not a single category. It is a set of structurally different approaches grouped under the same label, where those differences are often obscured at the point of evaluation and become highly visible at the point of failure.

Subscribe now

A Structural Lens from Inside TradFi

Earlier in my career, I was part of the core team that led Sales Enablement at First Republic Bank’s Wealth Management division, an institution managing approximately $290 billion in client assets prior to its FDIC seizure and subsequent acquisition by JPMorgan Chase in May 2023.

One of the most persistent operational challenges we faced had nothing to do with markets or client demand; it was data, specifically the challenge of defining and maintaining a clean, consistent record of what constituted a “household.” In wealth management, a household is not simply a family unit; it is a network of individuals, entities, accounts, and trusts, each connected through relationships that legacy systems were never designed to represent cleanly. Duplicate records, inconsistent definitions, and fragmented data across custodians were not edge cases; they were structural, and no amount of technology layered on top could resolve what the underlying architecture was not built to support.

The same structural reality applies directly to tokenization. Tokenization does not fix fragmented systems; it inherits them and, in many cases, amplifies those inconsistencies by introducing new layers of representation without resolving the underlying source of truth. The model you are building on, evaluating, or allocating to is only as good as the infrastructure and intention beneath it, and inflexibility, whether in legacy cores, in how ownership is defined, or in how institutional systems govern the assets being tokenized, remains the most underappreciated constraint in this market.

Granularity matters. Intention matters. And the hardest problems in this space are not technological; they are structural and human.

The Three Models, and What They Actually Mean in Practice

Sandy outlines three distinct approaches, each representing a different answer to a foundational question: where does ownership reside, how does settlement occur, and which system ultimately serves as the authoritative record?

These are not variations on the same theme. They are structurally different choices with different implications for capital efficiency, counterparty exposure, and how value moves through the system, and they are not equally suited to every institutional mandate, integration model, or client base.

Share The RWA Ledger

Synthetic Exposure Tokens

Synthetic structures, such as those used by platforms like Ondo Finance and Kraken, are currently the fastest-growing segment of the market, largely because they are the most flexible within existing blockchain environments.

In this model, token holders do not own the underlying asset directly; they hold a claim on an intermediary structure, typically a special purpose vehicle, through which economic exposure is passed. This enables tokens to move freely across wallets and DeFi protocols, supporting composability, liquidity, and global distribution.

That flexibility is achieved by shifting risk.

Ownership is indirect, governance rights are typically absent, and investor outcomes depend on the issuing entity’s solvency and operational integrity. Settlement may appear instantaneous on-chain, but the underlying asset still settles through off-chain processes, creating a gap between perceived and actual finality, and introducing exposure to timing mismatches, collateral management constraints, and issuer risk.

Of the three models, this is the one in which utility and investor protection move in opposite directions, and that divergence matters more as capital scales. If you are an allocator evaluating these products, the question to ask is not whether the token works on-chain; it is what your actual claim is if the issuer fails.

Digitally Native Tokenized Assets

Digitally native tokenized assets represent the closest alignment between on-chain representation and underlying ownership.

In this model, ownership, settlement, and recordkeeping are consolidated into a single system, enabling atomic settlement and continuous value transfer. This can reduce idle cash, compress settlement cycles, and improve capital efficiency across portfolios, and it marks tokenization’s move beyond representation and into infrastructure, where assets begin to function as programmable financial primitives capable of serving multiple roles across trading, collateralization, and liquidity management.

These benefits come with real constraints.

Because these assets operate within regulated environments, they are often permissioned, limiting their ability to move freely across open networks. Interoperability is reduced, integration with existing custody and reporting systems becomes more complex, and access may remain gated by regulatory requirements. This model strengthens ownership and settlement integrity, but it trades off flexibility and composability in doing so.

For builders evaluating which model to build on, the critical question is: are you building on genuinely new infrastructure, or are you building a new interface on top of the same monolithic architecture that has constrained financial services for decades? The distinction matters enormously for what you can actually deliver to institutional counterparties.

Digital Twin Structures

Digital twin models, such as those being explored by the DTCC and NYSE, maintain the authoritative ownership record within existing financial infrastructure, with the token functioning as a reference layer rather than a system of record.

In practice, ownership updates, settlement processes, and distributions continue to follow traditional financial rails, including batch settlement cycles and fiat-based payment flows, even as a token exists on-chain. These tokens cannot be transferred between wallets, pay distributions via fiat into traditional accounts on legacy schedules, and depend entirely on the integrity of the off-chain record they mirror.

This approach aligns closely with existing regulatory and operational frameworks, making it more immediately compatible with institutional systems and less disruptive to existing workflows. It also limits the extent to which tokenization can transform market structure.

Because the underlying systems remain unchanged, improvements to settlement speed, capital efficiency, and programmability are constrained by the same infrastructure that governs traditional markets. The legacy cores underneath are not a detail; they are the constraint, and they do not disappear because a token sits on top of them. The token improves the interface, but not the architecture.

This is not simply an infrastructure observation; it has direct implications for how settlement risk is transmitted. As Edwin Mata argued in American Banker earlier this year, tokenization does not eliminate settlement risk; it moves it from delayed counterparty uncertainty into immediacy, funding precision, and system integrity, and when time is removed as the buffer, liquidity becomes the shock absorber. That shift has to be engineered, priced, and governed accordingly — and in a digital twin structure, where the underlying settlement architecture remains unchanged, that engineering has not yet happened.

We examined this dynamic in depth in Atomic Settlement, Tokenized Securities, and the SEC, where we argued that atomic settlement does not add new obligations so much as it alters the constraint set within which existing obligations must be met, compressing compliance, liquidity management, and counterparty exposure into the moment of execution rather than distributing them across post-trade cycles.

Leave a comment

Why this Distinction Matters

These models are often grouped under the same narrative of tokenization, but they operate on fundamentally different assumptions about ownership, settlement, and system design. Treating them as interchangeable introduces misalignment at the point of integration, where assumptions about ownership rights, settlement finality, and counterparty exposure begin to diverge from how the underlying structure actually behaves, and that misalignment compounds under stress.

From an institutional perspective, this distinction directly affects where risk sits across the product lifecycle; how token arrangements interact with existing settlement standards, custody obligations, and regulatory frameworks varies materially depending on the model, a distinction that global regulators have begun to treat as central rather than peripheral to systemic stability.

The questions worth asking differ depending on where you sit:

For investors and allocators:

• What do I actually own, and what is my legal claim if the issuing entity fails?

• How does liquidity in this structure behave under stress, and am I exposed to redemption processes that depend on off-chain systems I do not control?

• Does the settlement finality I am assuming actually exist in the model I am evaluating, or is it obscured by on-chain presentation of an off-chain process?

Liquidity in tokenized markets remains uneven and often fragmented across venues, meaning the ability to enter or exit positions without impacting price is limited in many cases. The structure of the token directly determines how exposed an investor is to these risks, particularly in models where secondary markets are thin or where redemption depends on off-chain processes that introduce timing dependencies and counterparty exposure that on-chain settlement does not eliminate.

For institutional operators and product teams:

• Is the model we are building on or integrating with actually compatible with our existing operating model, or are we assuming a level of infrastructure maturity that does not yet exist?

• Where do compliance, custody, and settlement obligations land in this structure, and can our systems execute them in real time if settlement expectations compress?

• What presents as a technology decision here — and is it actually a balance sheet and risk management decision in disguise?

Whether evaluating platforms like Ondo, Kraken, or other specialized providers, the assessment must extend beyond user experience and yield profile to include how ownership is structured, how assets settle, how liquidity is sourced, and where dependencies on off-chain systems persist. Firms with tightly managed liquidity profiles, including banks, wealth platforms, and liability-driven investors, may not be positioned to absorb the variability introduced by fragmented liquidity or non-standard settlement flows.

For founders building toward institutional credibility:

• Does the model I am building on actually support the ownership, settlement, and compliance standards my institutional counterparties require, or am I building utility on top of a structure that will not survive their due diligence?

• Am I solving for composability and speed at the expense of the legal enforceability and counterparty clarity that institutions need before they can allocate?

• Who controls the authoritative record in my model, and what happens to my product if that record and the on-chain representation diverge?

The choice of tokenization model is not a product decision that can be revisited easily once capital is committed and counterparties are integrated. Getting this right at the architecture stage is the difference between building something institutions can adopt and building something they will admire from a distance.

For advisors and wealth managers:

• Do I understand which tokenization model underlies the products I am evaluating for clients, and does that structure align with the ownership rights and protections my clients expect?

• If a client asks me what they actually own in a tokenized product, can I answer that question with precision rather than in general terms?

• How does the settlement and distribution mechanics of this model fit within my existing reporting, compliance, and custody infrastructure?

The same data fragmentation and ownership complexity that made household recordkeeping so difficult in traditional wealth management do not disappear in tokenized markets; they migrate to a new layer of infrastructure, where the gaps between on-chain representation and off-chain legal reality can be harder to see and explain to clients.

Finally, composability introduces a layer of systemic exposure that all four audiences should track. Tokenized assets that move freely across on-chain environments can create interconnected risk when used as collateral across multiple protocols or platforms. The IMF’s 2025 FinTech analysis on tokenization and financial market inefficiencies warned directly that tokenization may amplify shocks if it induces institutions to become more interconnected and hold lower liquidity buffers or higher leverage, a risk that is most acute in synthetic structures where composability is highest and ownership protections are thinnest. As interlinkages between tokenized assets and broader financial systems deepen, the potential for localized failures to propagate increases, reinforcing the need for clarity on underlying structures before capital scales.

Share

On Convergence and Control

Sandy’s broader argument points toward eventual convergence between traditional financial institutions and crypto-native infrastructure, a view captured well by Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, whom she cites as saying that tokenization is “like a freight train” that will eventually consume the entire financial system. That framing is useful for capturing momentum, but it tells you nothing about which train you are actually on, or whether the tracks beneath it connect to the destination being assumed.

Directionally, convergence is right, but it understates the weight of institutional relationships, which are not friction to be engineered away; they are load-bearing. Custodians, transfer agents, prime brokers, and advisors are not simply service providers; they are trusted interpreters of ownership, risk, and compliance, and the clients who rely on them are not abandoning those relationships because a more efficient settlement rail exists.

Convergence will not be dictated solely by the most efficient technology. It will be shaped by whoever controls the authoritative record of ownership, and today that still sits largely within traditional financial systems. For founders seeking to build credibility with institutional counterparties, understanding this dynamic is not a concession; it is a strategic advantage.

Where this Leaves the Market

Tokenization is evolving, and what Sandy outlines is not a fixed taxonomy but an early framework describing the first set of structures to reach institutional relevance. These models represent the beginning of a broader continuum that will continue to expand and redefine itself as regulatory clarity, settlement infrastructure, and market participation develop in parallel.

The tradeoffs across ownership, settlement design, liquidity, and integration with existing financial systems are not static. As tokenized markets scale, they will be shaped by how institutions balance efficiency gains against new forms of liquidity demand, counterparty exposure, and operational complexity, considerations that global regulators are already beginning to treat as central to systemic stability rather than peripheral concerns.

The opportunity is not simply to adopt tokenization. It is to engage with it precisely because the question is no longer whether assets can be represented on-chain; it is whether the infrastructure beneath those representations actually supports the assumed outcomes.

These three models are not an endpoint. They are a signal, marking the beginning of a structural shift in how financial assets are issued, settled, and managed, one that will continue to evolve as institutions, infrastructure providers, and regulators collectively shape what comes next. The players who understand where each model sits on that continuum will be far better positioned than those who treat them as interchangeable.

Read the Full Piece

Sandy Kaul’s full article is worth reading: Detangling Tokenization of RWAs

On the Ledger is a recurring feature from

Surfacing third-party research and commentary shaping RWAs and tokenized markets, with our editorial lens applied. Credit and full attribution always go to the original authors - our role is to surface the work, add context, and connect it to the infrastructure, institutional, and market-structure questions we cover in depth in our original research.

If the questions raised in this piece resonate, two pieces from The RWA Ledger that go deeper on the infrastructure and definitional arguments are worth reading alongside Sandy’s original:

Atomic Settlement, Tokenized Securities, and the SEC — on how atomic settlement reshapes compliance, liquidity, and modernization strategy

Are We Undervaluing RWAs by Thinking Too Narrowly? — on why the definition of RWAs matters as much as the infrastructure itself

For more analysis on tokenization, financial infrastructure, and institutional adoption, explore The RWA Ledger at substack.com/@therwaledger

All views are those of The RWA Ledger. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice.

Recent guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has clarified how existing securities laws apply to tokenized securities without creating a new market framework or mandating changes to settlement. At the same time, tokenization, real-time processing infrastructure, and shifting client behavior are compressing expectations around settlement speed and finality across financial markets.

This article examines how those forces intersect and discusses how the emergence of atomic settlement provides a useful lens for evaluating modernization strategies and why some approaches that appeared sufficient under batch-based assumptions now reveal structural limits in production.

Subscribe now

Why Timing Has Become a Strategic Variable

For much of the last decade, discussions about modernization within financial institutions followed a familiar pattern, centered on costs, timelines, vendor risks, and whether the anticipated benefits justified multi-year, multi-million dollar transformations. Those debates haven’t vanished. Boards and executive teams still grapple with sequencing, ROI, and operational disruptions. What's changed is the strategic role that time plays in the equation.

For decades, time served as a buffer, one that often worked in favor of the very institutional systems that benefited from it. Batch processing, delayed settlements, and netting cycles absorbed complexity, allowing risk to be modeled, queued, reconciled, and managed down the line. Even when industry leaders recognized that legacy core systems constrained innovation, the pressure to act was rarely felt urgent. Architectural limits were tolerated because time made them workable.

But today, that buffer is now eroding.

Tokenization, real-time payment rails, and always-on markets are steadily compressing settlement cycles. What was once settled overnight, and then in T+2 or T+1, is increasingly expected to be resolved immediately. As settlement compression accelerates, long-standing assumptions about netting, delayed finality, manual reconciliation, and operational slack are no longer theoretical design choices. Production environments are now exposing them directly.

This shift has been building for years. What has changed recently is the regulatory context in which it is unfolding.

Regulatory Clarity and the Narrowing of Uncertainty

In late 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a joint staff statement clarifying how existing U.S. securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The statement reaffirmed a foundational principle: a security remains subject to securities laws regardless of whether ownership records are maintained on a blockchain, a traditional system, or a combination of both. Confirming that representing a security as a digital asset, through tokenization, does not alter its regulatory treatment.

The guidance is deliberately narrow. It focuses specifically on tokenized securities and does not extend to other forms of tokenization, such as digital representations of art, collectibles, physical goods, or non-security assets. In many respects, this is reasonable if the rules are to remain comparable to existing investment and asset management practices. It reflects staff views intended to help market participants prepare registrations, proposals, or requests for Commission or staff action. It is not a rulemaking and does not introduce new legal authority. (SEC staff statement / no-action context)

That narrowness is precisely what gives the statement its weight.

For institutions that had adopted a wait-and-see posture, the guidance removes a long-standing source of ambiguity. The remaining questions are no longer primarily about permissibility. They concern execution: how custody, transfer, disclosure, recordkeeping, and settlement obligations are fulfilled when securities are represented and moved through new technical architectures.

As the National Law Review observed in its analysis of the statement,

“There is no ‘magic’ created by tokenization. The application of blockchain technology does not change the nature of the underlying security or the regulatory framework that governs it.”
— National Law Review, “No Magic Here — SEC Statement on Securities Tokenization”

The SEC’s statement outlines various tokenization frameworks, including:

1. Issuer-supported models, like Integrated On-Chain Recordkeeping and Off-Chain Record with Token Notification, as well as

2. Third-party tokenized securities, which may involve: Custodial Tokenized Securities (Tokenized Entitlements), Synthetic Tokenized Securities (Linked/Derivative Models), which specifically includes Linked Securities and Security-Based Swaps (SBS) instruments.

You can read more on the joint statement and directives from the Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), here.

This is especially important for institutions and firms that have remained intrigued but on the sidelines about whether to proceed with tokenization. Across the frameworks outlined by the SEC, the core obligations remain consistent: custody, transfer, disclosure, and recordkeeping. What changes is:

• Where and how those obligations are executed.

• The chosen technical architecture is whether issuer-supported, custodial, synthetic, or platform-based.

• How regulatory requirements are fulfilled in practice, making design decisions an extension of compliance rather than a layer on top of it.
  

  Share The RWA Ledger

How Technical Architecture Carries Regulatory Obligations

As tokenized securities move into regulated production, technical architecture increasingly determines how regulatory obligations are satisfied in practice. The SEC’s joint staff statement on tokenized securities makes the core position explicit: representing a security on a blockchain does not change its legal treatment. What it does change is where and how longstanding obligations are carried out.

In the “staff’s” own framing, the relevant questions are not whether tokenized securities are subject to the federal securities laws, but how custody, transfer, disclosure, recordkeeping, and customer protection obligations are fulfilled when those securities are issued, held, and settled using new technical “plumbing.” That framing is reflected in the specific models described by the SEC staff.

Issuer-supported tokenization models.
In Integrated On-Chain Recordkeeping and Off-Chain Record with Token Notification structures, the issuer or its transfer agent remains the legal record owner, while a distributed ledger is used for some or all of the operational recordkeeping. In these designs:

• The traditional registrar or transfer agent continues to bear formal recordkeeping obligations under the securities laws.

• The on-chain environment becomes part of the same recordkeeping system for practical purposes, because transfers and ownership updates occur there.

• Reconciliation between on-chain and off-chain records is no longer a periodic back-office task; it is an ongoing requirement to satisfy recordkeeping, reporting, and customer protection duties.

In other words, the SEC’s “same rules” principle forces architecture to operate as a compliance instrument:

• If the on-chain record is treated as operationally authoritative, then the integrity, governance, and auditability of that ledger become regulatory concerns rather than merely engineering choices.

• If the off-chain record is definitive, the system must be designed to ensure that on-chain activity can be reliably synchronized and, where necessary, overridden or corrected in accordance with transfer agent obligations.

Third-party and platform-based tokenization models.
The “staff statement” also contemplates Custodial Tokenized Securities (Tokenized Entitlements) and Synthetic Tokenized Securities (Linked/Derivative Models), including linked securities and security-based swaps. In these cases, architecture around custody and control becomes determinative:

• In custodial entitlement models, the token represents a claim on securities held by a qualified custodian. Compliance with safeguarding, segregation, and customer protection rules depends on how wallets, omnibus accounts, and sub-accounts are structured, and how control over private keys is exercised and documented.

• In synthetic or linked models, the token tracks the value or performance of an underlying security or basket of securities, often via a derivative or swap. Here, the platform’s risk engine, valuation feeds, and margin mechanics are integral to the implementation of disclosure, suitability, and risk management obligations.

In both cases, details that might once have been treated as implementation minutiae—wallet design, key management, segregation rules, and permissioning logic—now function as compliance mechanisms:

• Who has the ability to initiate or block a transfer is directly related to custody and control under the securities and custody rules.

• How entitlements are updated across omnibus and sub-account structures maps to customer protection, segregation, and recordkeeping obligations.

• How synthetic payoffs are calculated and settled, and how those processes are disclosed to investors, bears on disclosure and anti-fraud standards.

Settlement architecture and the timing of compliance.
The “staff’s” focus on “new plumbing, same rules” also has clear implications for settlement design. Frameworks that enable near-instant or atomic settlement compress the time available for compliance checks. Under a batch-based, T+1 or T+2 regime, many obligations were satisfied through:

• Pre-trade controls and counterparty onboarding;

• Intraday risk monitoring; and

• Post-trade reconciliation and exception handling before finality.

When asset and cash legs settle atomically or near-instantly, that temporal buffer disappears. Sanctions screening, eligibility checks, transfer restriction enforcement, and position limits must be evaluated in the same window as execution itself. Practically, this means:

• Sanctions and KYC/AML engines must be callable as real-time services within the settlement workflow.

• Transfer restriction logic (e.g., Section 5 constraints, Reg S/Rule 144A limitations, or investor qualification rules) must be implemented as programmable controls, not merely as legal covenants or operational procedures.

• Exception handling must be moved in front of or alongside execution, rather than being reserved for end-of-day repair.

This is where the interaction with recent market volatility and the discussion of atomic settlement becomes most visible. The February 2026 digital-asset drawdown showed how markets behave when margining, liquidations, and collateral movements occur continuously, with no overnight window for reconciliation. From the SEC’s perspective, the rules did not change in that episode—but the operational surface on which the rules must be enforced did.

From abstract obligations to concrete design choices.
Taken together, the models in the SEC staff statement show how tokenized securities are being organized within existing regulatory frameworks:

• Issuer-supported models keep traditional roles intact, but require synchronized, dual-environment recordkeeping.

• Custodial entitlement and synthetic models push custody, key management, and platform risk engines into the foreground as the effective locus of compliance.

• Settlement designs that move toward near-real-time or atomic execution relocate compliance from a predominantly procedural and post-trade layer into a real-time system requirement.

Within these boundaries, tokenization is no longer peripheral infrastructure. It is embedded in the core of how regulated instruments are issued, held, and settled, and is therefore subject to the same expectations around resilience, auditability, and operational control as traditional market systems. Architecture choices now determine not only how systems perform under normal conditions, but how regulatory duties are carried out under stress, including during periods of abrupt repricing and liquidity strain, when the absence of temporal buffers is felt most acutely.

When Settlement Expectations Compress

When ownership updates and transfers occur with greater immediacy, expectations regarding finality, operational responsiveness, and system coordination are compressed. Even when tokenized securities operate within familiar regulatory frameworks, they behave differently from traditional book-entry instruments. Once institutions move beyond proof of concept, these behaviors collide with infrastructure built around delay.

Consequences that become most visible under stress.

In early February 2026, a sharp risk-off move provided a live-fire illustration. U.S. equities sold off as investors digested another batch of earnings and interest-rate commentary, with the S&P 500 swinging lower intraday and volatility measures spiking. At the same time, crypto markets experienced an even more abrupt repricing. Bitcoin recently fell below $61,000, representing a drop of roughly 30% in less than 60 days, some analysts have since warned of a potential slide of an additional 25% or more if selling pressure persists and key technical levels fail to hold.¹ In leveraged venues, the mechanics of that repricing were unforgiving: liquidations triggered automatically as collateral thresholds were breached, orders executed into thinning order books, and positions were closed within minutes as prices fell faster than liquidity could be replenished. (Decrypt: Bitcoin Crash Could Deepen to $38K, Say Analysts)

For participants in those on-chain environments, the episode was operational rather than theoretical. Liquidity had to be available at the moment of execution. If it was not, positions were resolved immediately. There was no opportunity to net exposures across accounts, no delay to mobilize funding, and no post-trade window to correct mismatches. Risk surfaced all at once rather than being distributed across time.

By contrast, comparable stress in traditional market structures is often absorbed differently. Margin calls, variation settlements, and reconciliation processes typically unfold across intraday or multi-day cycles. That temporal spacing does not eliminate risk, but it shapes how it is managed: firms can source liquidity, rebalance exposures, and resolve discrepancies before legal finality. Time functions as a risk-management tool.

The February drawdown was not caused by atomic settlement, nor does it suggest that traditional markets should replicate crypto-native mechanics wholesale. Its relevance lies in what it reveals about what happens when settlement finality approaches immediacy:

• Stress is absorbed through real-time liquidity availability rather than through end-of-day netting.

• System coordination across venues, custodians, and collateral pools becomes a first-order constraint.

• Operational assumptions that once relied on overnight batches or T+1 cycles are exposed directly.

This is the lens through which atomic settlement enters the discussion. Atomic settlement is not a policy objective being imposed on markets so much as a condition that makes these dynamics explicit: when asset and cash legs settle in a single, indivisible event, time no longer functions as a buffer for incomplete integration, manual workarounds, or deferred reconciliation.

That has direct implications for how institutions interpret and ultimately respond to the SEC’s recent tokenization guidance.

The joint staff statement clarified that representing a security on-chain does not alter its legal treatment, but it validated a set of concrete implementation models—issuer-supported records, custodial entitlements, and synthetic structures—within which tokenization can proceed. In practical terms, that guidance narrowed uncertainty around whether institutions can participate and shifted the emphasis to how they will do so.

The February episode underscores why that “how” now hinges on settlement mechanics.

• Regulatory clarity enables institutions to move from pilots to production across the SEC’s tokenization frameworks.

• Settlement design, including whether and where atomic or near-atomic finality is introduced, determines how those decisions perform under stress.

For decision-makers evaluating modernization paths, the trade-offs are no longer abstract:

• Incremental, batch-dependent architectures may remain compliant on paper, but they assume time as a shock absorber.

• Architectures that move closer to real-time or atomic settlement must demonstrate their ability to deliver precise liquidity, synchronized records, and real-time compliance when markets move quickly.

Opening the door for tokenization to enter production under clearer regulatory guardrails. The open question is whether the chosen modernization path will allow participation to remain viable as settlement expectations compress and stress arrives in real time.

Share

Atomic Settlement and the Compression of Time

Against this backdrop, atomic settlement moves from a thought experiment to a concrete design choice. The SEC’s tokenization guidance confirms that existing rules apply regardless of how ownership records are maintained; the February drawdown illustrates how markets behave when settlement expectations approach immediacy. Atomic settlement sits at the intersection of those two forces. It does not change the rules, but it does change when and where those rules must be executed.

In its simplest form, atomic settlement, often implemented as Delivery-versus-Payment (DvP) on-chain, requires the simultaneous exchange of an asset and its payment in a single, indivisible transaction. Either both legs complete, or neither does. There is no interim exposure between trade and finality, no daylight credit risk, and no reliance on batch windows to reconcile discrepancies. Recent work on on-chain DvP has shown how this model can collapse what are today separate stages, trade confirmation, messaging, asset movement, and cash settlement, into a single coordinated action, rather than a sequence of loosely coupled steps. (Chainlink overview)

From an engineering perspective, this coordination is increasingly feasible. Smart contract platforms and cross-domain messaging frameworks can orchestrate conditional transfers across asset ledgers, payment systems, and collateral pools with deterministic logic. From an institutional perspective, however, atomic settlement does something more uncomfortable: it exposes how much of today’s operating infrastructure quietly depends on time, on overnight netting, intraday credit, and post-trade repair, to function at scale.

Global standard-setters have begun to unpack the implications of that shift. The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) notes that atomic settlement fundamentally redistributes risk across the system.² Counterparty exposure between trade and settlement can fall sharply when payment and delivery are bound together. But other forms of risk move forward in time:

• Liquidity risk increases at the point of execution, because participants must have sufficient, pre-positioned funds and assets available when the atomic event occurs.

• Operational and technical risk become more concentrated, as system availability, latency control, and deterministic execution are prerequisites for completing settlement rather than for cleaning up afterward.

• Coordination risk increases across linked infrastructures, trading venues, custodians, cash ledgers, and compliance engines that must act in concert within tight time windows.

In the BIS framing, risk management does not disappear; it is compressed. Functions that were historically distributed across post-trade processes, netting, reconciliation, and exception handling are pulled forward toward the moment of execution. (BIS CPMI report)

That compression has second-order effects that matter directly for modernization decisions:

• Greater reliance on pre-positioned liquidity. Netting efficiencies shrink when fewer transactions can be offset over time. Participants must more precisely fund gross exposures, and liquidity buffers must be sized for real-time rather than end-of-day conditions.

• Reduced tolerance for latency and retries. Delays, manual interventions, or failed messages that were once tolerable within T+1 or T+2 cycles become potential settlement failures when asset and cash legs must complete atomically.

• Heightened importance of system uptime and determinism. Infrastructure outages, inconsistent ledger states, or non-deterministic processing can now halt or fragment settlement, rather than being absorbed by later reconciliation.

Engineering research from AWS and Iason reach similar conclusions from the systems side.³ They describe atomic settlement as a coordination problem across independently operated systems: asset ledgers, cash ledgers, compliance services, risk engines, and liquidity sources. Many of these components were never designed to act synchronously: (AWS / Iason: Atomic Settlement)

• Asset records may live on public or permissioned blockchains.

• Cash balances may sit in central bank RTGS systems, commercial bank ledgers, or tokenized deposit platforms.

• Compliance and risk checks may be implemented as separate services, batch jobs, or manual workflows.

Achieving atomic settlement across that landscape requires more than a smart contract. It requires a redesign of how those systems exchange information, prove state, and commit to outcomes within a bounded time window. The research highlights that, without that coordination, attempts at atomic settlement can inadvertently create new failure modes, stranded transactions, partial updates, or asymmetric views of ownership and payment.

In practice, atomic settlement removes time as a shock absorber. Any inconsistencies between systems must be resolved before execution, not reconciled after it. For institutions operating under the SEC’s tokenization frameworks, this has three important implications.

First, compliance moves into the execution path. Under issuer-supported, custodial, or synthetic tokenization models, obligations around custody, transfer restrictions, and customer protection already extend into the technical architecture. With atomic or near-atomic settlement, those obligations must be satisfied in real time:

• Sanctions screening, KYC/AML checks, and eligibility rules can no longer rely on overnight lists or post-trade surveillance alone; they must be callable as live services within the settlement workflow.

• Transfer restrictions embedded in offering documents—such as limitations under Section 5, Regulation S, or Rule 144A—must be enforced as programmable controls that can block or modify transactions at the point of execution.

• Recordkeeping obligations that previously depended on end-of-day reconciliation must now be met through synchronized, authoritative ledgers, both on-chain and off-chain.

Second, hyper-volatile conditions become a design requirement rather than an edge case. The February 2026 drawdown showed how quickly positions can be repriced, margined, and liquidated in always-on markets. Atomic settlement would not have caused that volatility, but it would have shaped how it was transmitted:

• Liquidity shortfalls would translate more directly into failed or cancelled settlements rather than into intraday credit extensions.

• Collateral movements would occur at the same cadence as price changes, forcing continuous liquidity management rather than allowing exposures to be smoothed across cycles.

• Operational or coordination failures among trading venues, custodians, and payment rails would manifest immediately as settlement breaks, rather than appearing hours later during reconciliation.

For institutions designing tokenized products within the SEC’s frameworks, atomic settlement therefore becomes a stress-testing lens: a way to ask how their chosen architecture behaves when markets move quickly and time can no longer be treated as a buffer.

Third, atomic settlement clarifies the trade-offs between modernization paths. Migrating to cloud-native cores, building parallel digital stacks, or launching tokenization pilots may all be consistent with the SEC’s guidance. The question is whether those paths can sustain:

• The required precision in liquidity when netting and delays can no longer mask structural frictions.

• The real-time data consistency needed to treat on-chain and off-chain records as a single operational truth at the moment of settlement; and

• The compliance and risk controls must now operate inside execution windows measured in seconds rather than days.

Seen this way, atomic settlement does not add new obligations on top of the SEC’s tokenization rules. It alters the constraint set within which those obligations must be met. Counterparty risk between trade and settlement may shrink, but liquidity, operational, and coordination risks become more acute at the instant of finality. For decision-makers, the strategic question is no longer only whether tokenization is permissible, but whether their modernization strategy can withstand a world in which settlement, regulation, and volatility all operate on real-time terms.

Atomic Settlement, Client Expectations, and Market Stress

Against the backdrop of SEC decision-making on tokenized securities guidelines, institutional adoption of tokenized assets is poised to accelerate. Many leaders are now wondering how best to proceed. While some asset managers have launched tokenized funds and digital-asset products at scale, and some banks are extending custody, settlement, and collateral services into regulated environments, there are additional considerations that must be addressed for those who have taken a wait-and-see approach. These initiatives increasingly require real-time asset movements to coexist with batch-based cores, exposing tensions that become most visible under stress.

Client behavior is a primary source of that pressure.

According to recent industry analysis, stablecoins account for roughly one‑third of on‑chain transaction volumes, with annual flows measured in the trillions of dollars. Across 2024–2025, multiple research efforts, including (TRM Labs, 2025 Crypto Adoption and Stablecoin Usage Report). report, describe:

• Annualized stablecoin volumes account for roughly 30% of all on-chain transaction volume,

• $4 trillion in transaction value in 2025, with strong year‑over‑year growth; and

• 80% year-over-year volume growth with activity increasingly routed through regulated intermediaries and payment providers, not just speculative venues.

For users relying on these instruments for payments, treasury, and cross‑border settlement, immediacy is no longer novel. Finality is assumed, not negotiated. Those expectations do not remain confined to crypto-native platforms. They shape how clients evaluate responsiveness, transparency, and control across financial services more broadly—from collateral calls to portfolio rebalancing and cash management.

Regulatory clarity is accelerating this shift. As stablecoin legislation and digital-asset market-structure frameworks advance in the U.S. and Europe, perceived career and compliance risks within institutions have diminished. The unresolved question is now operational: whether existing infrastructure can support faster settlement without introducing fragility in liquidity management, reconciliation, and control environments.

In this context, atomic settlement becomes relevant as a feature set, not a slogan.

What Atomic Settlement Changes for Clients

Atomic settlement—often implemented as on‑chain Delivery‑versus‑Payment (DvP)—binds the asset and cash legs of a transaction into a single, indivisible event. Either both transfer, or neither does. In client terms, that means:

• Clear, immediate finality: once a transaction executes, ownership and cash balances update in lockstep.

• Reduced counterparty limbo: the window between “trade done” and “trade settled” narrows or disappears.

• Less reliance on opaque intraday credit: clients see when liquidity is actually available, rather than discovering exposures later.

From an engineering standpoint, recent work on on‑chain DvP shows that smart contracts and cross‑domain messaging can coordinate these flows across asset ledgers and tokenized cash with deterministic logic. From a client standpoint, that logic surfaces as a different experience, especially during sell‑offs and rapid repricing.

Sell-Offs, Repricing, and Real-Time Expectations

Episodes like the February 2026 drawdown, when U.S. equities sold off, and crypto markets repriced sharply, highlight the gap between client expectations and legacy plumbing:

• On‑chain, leveraged positions were liquidated automatically as collateral thresholds were breached, with balances updating continuously as prices moved.

• There was no delay in mobilizing funding or net exposures across accounts; liquidity had to be available at the time of execution.

In traditional, batch‑oriented environments, similar stress often unfolds over intraday or multi‑day cycles. Margin calls, variation settlements, and reconciliation tasks provide time to source liquidity and fix breaks before legal finality.

Atomic settlement would not cause volatility in such scenarios, but it would change how it is transmitted and experienced:

• Clients would see immediate confirmation or failure of trades and collateral movements, rather than waiting for overnight files.

• Liquidity shortfalls would surface as failed or blocked settlements, not as intraday credit quietly extended by intermediaries.

• Operational and coordination failures among venues, custodians, and payment rails would be visible in real time rather than buried in next‑day adjustments.

For institutional clients, the feature set looks like:

• More transparent exposure during repricing events.

• Cleaner audit trails around who owned what, when, and

• Tighter alignment between trading decisions and balance-sheet reality.

Adoption Data and the Direction of Travel

The adoption data around stablecoins and tokenized instruments reinforces that these are not edge‑case preferences:

• Stablecoins: Industry trackers and TRM Labs’ 2025 report point to trillions of dollars in annual stablecoin settlement volume, with robust growth over the past several years and a rising share of on‑chain activity tied to payments, remittances, and institutional flows—not only speculative trading.

• Institutional products: Large managers have launched tokenized government money funds and tokenized cash-equivalent products, and major asset managers have introduced tokenized funds and bitcoin‑linked vehicles into portfolios as part of broader liquidity and collateral strategies, not merely as trading experiments.

These data points all point in the same direction: clients are already operating in environments where real‑time settlement is the norm, even if the core of the traditional financial system is still organized around delay.

Under the SEC’s tokenization frameworks, the legal obligations—custody, disclosure, recordkeeping, customer protection—are unchanged. Atomic settlement reshapes the operational constraints under which those obligations must be met. The question is now less whether clients will demand this feature set, they already are, and more whether modernization strategies can deliver it without trading counterparty risk for new, poorly understood forms of liquidity and operational risk.

Leave a comment

Atomic Settlement as a Strategic Filter for Modernization

For decision‑makers, the SEC’s tokenization guidance does not prescribe a single modernization blueprint. It does something subtler but more consequential: it clarifies that existing securities laws apply regardless of whether records sit on a blockchain, a legacy system, or both—while market structure and client behavior are steadily moving toward real‑time expectations.

Within that frame, atomic settlement becomes less a niche technical feature and more a useful filter for evaluating which modernization paths remain viable as settlement expectations compress.

Institutions are already experimenting along different tracks. Some have focused on expanding data access and responsiveness around existing cores—BNY Mellon’s Pershing, for example, has invested in API‑based access to custodial data so advisors can act on more current positions without fully replacing underlying systems. (Overview)

Others have built greenfield digital stacks alongside legacy infrastructure. Standard Chartered’s launch of Mox Bank in Hong Kong illustrates this approach: a new, cloud‑based retail platform operating with its own technology environment, even as the group’s traditional systems continue to support other businesses. (Overview)

BlackRock’s tokenized BUIDL fund (overview), which distributes yield on‑chain and can be used as collateral in digital venues, and Franklin Templeton’s OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund (FOBXX - overview), which records ownership and processes transactions on a public blockchain, both demonstrate how production assets can live on new rails while remaining subject to existing regulatory obligations.

What the SEC’s guidance adds is a clearer boundary: across all of these models, custody, transfer, disclosure, and recordkeeping duties do not change. What does change is when and where those duties must be executed as settlement moves closer to real time.

Seen through that lens, atomic settlement becomes a question to apply to each path rather than a destination in itself:

• Can this architecture support asset and cash movements that complete in a single, tightly bounded window, without relying on overnight batches or manual repair?

• Are compliance, sanctions screening, and eligibility checks able to operate in the same time frame as execution, rather than only before or after it?

• Can records stay synchronized across on‑chain and off‑chain environments at the moment of finality, not just in end‑of‑day reports?

Some institutions may decide that full atomic settlement is not an immediate objective. Others may pursue it first in constrained domains—specific tokenized funds, collateral use cases, or internal liquidity flows—before extending it more broadly. In either case, the SEC’s clarification and the recent behavior of always‑on markets shift the modernization question from “Should we upgrade?” to “Which changes keep us credible when clients, products, and regulators all assume that settlement can happen on real‑time terms?”

As tokenization moves from pilots into production under established regulatory guardrails, that horizon is against which modernization choices will increasingly be judged. Atomic settlement, whether adopted directly or used as a design benchmark, offers a way to test whether an institution’s chosen path can withstand that future rather than merely coexist with its past.

Marina Mendenhall-Valente
Partner, Tiburon Advisory Group | Founder of The RWA Ledger

The RWA Ledger is written by a former TradFi leader for today’s TradFi leaders, helping them confront the realities of crypto and tokenization before it’s too late.

Views are my own. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, endorsement, or investment solicitation.

The Cost of Modernization VS. The Cost of Waiting

What was once a strength is now a structural liability, industry leaders know this. They know their COBOL-based cores are monolithic and inflexible, that even small changes are risky and painfully slow. They also know that discussions about core conversions tend to stall, often marked by hesitation, deference, and resistance. And to be fair, that hesitation is understandable. Between 2020 and 2023, I worked at a top banking and wealth management institution in the Bay Area that was in the middle of a major core conversion. From direct experience, I saw that these conversions demand enormous cross-functional effort and are among the most expensive initiatives a financial institution can undertake. Our firm completed the conversion with only minor delays—an outcome many would call a success. But even then, the story illustrates the deeper challenge: not every institution can, or will, commit that level of time, capital, and expertise. And sometimes, even when you do, the payoff never arrives. In the wake of the SVB fallout in March of 2023, our institution was swept up by a competitor in the aftermath, which required us to cease operations before we could fully realize the benefits of the upgraded core. The lesson is stark: markets and macro shocks won’t wait for your technology roadmap.

Timing, not awareness, is the competitive fault line. That’s the crux of this strategic problem - as they say, “timings a bitch.”

The market, the enablers, and the eventual winners are not moved by internal deference or “timing.” An institution’s decision to modernize (or not) directly shapes the competitive landscape. Early movers don’t just “get better tech”; they directly influence and reset client expectations, define new service standards, and quietly capture the upside of being able to ship faster, integrate more broadly, and price risk more intelligently. Competitors that don’t keep up, by contrast, become case studies in missed timing.

Subscribe now

Today, the binding constraint is no longer whether executives recognize COBOL's limitations. It’s the chronic deferral of action. Decisions about core modernization get bounced from steering committee decks to hallway conversations and back again, with upgrades consistently relegated to “maybe later.” Meanwhile, “later” keeps getting more expensive. All debts eventually come due - financial, technical, or otherwise. The cost of waiting on core modernization is now compounding. And decision latency, absolutely, has a way of compounding. The inflection point is now, and the opportunity cost of delay is clearer than ever, because the frontier of value creation in finance - AI, tokenization, blockchain-based infrastructure, and the coming Great Wealth Transfer—demands capabilities that batch-era systems simply cannot deliver.

COBOL cores were built for end-of-day updates, not for real-time, data-rich, always-available interactions. Batch processing is the clearest symptom: traditional systems update balances and settle trades in fixed off-hours windows (typically overnight). Customers experience this as cut-offs, delays, and opaque status updates, but the real issue is deeper: the core architecture cannot natively support continuous, event-driven finance. As one industry analysis notes, most U.S. banks still run on COBOL cores “originally built for batch processing,” which “can’t natively support real-time” transactions. That’s why a payment sent late on a Friday can take until Monday, or later on holidays, to fully clear—not because the money can’t move, but because the system governing it is literally asleep between batch cycles.

This is no longer a tolerable annoyance at the edges of the business. It’s a direct cap on what firms can build. Real-time payment networks like FedNow, 24/7 settlement, programmable assets, instant collateral management, AI-driven risk, and personalization—these are all predicated on infrastructure that can see, process, and act on data continuously and reliably.

When Latency Becomes Strategic Debt

The lack of native support for mainframes, like COBOL, extends to existing tech stacks as well, not just future ones. For modern APIs and data formats, forcing banks into fragile workarounds and middleware layers just to connect mobile apps or fintech partners. Many institutions still require overnight reconciliation, making “simple” features, such as real-time balances or instant peer-to-peer transfers, nontrivial and brittle to deliver at scale. The result is unavoidable latency, often measured in hours, precisely where clients and counterparties now expect milliseconds. The burden isn’t only architectural—it’s human and financial. Maintaining these aging systems siphons capital and talent away from the future. The codebases are dense with decades of patches and edge cases, and a shrinking cadre of senior engineers who understand them are aging out. Approximately 68% of the remaining pool of COBOL developers have retired by the start of 2026, creating a structural skills gap at a time when stability and security are most critical.

In that environment, a “simple” change can be dangerous. One quick fix to a COBOL module can trigger cascading failures across tightly coupled components. At the same time, the cost of just keeping these systems alive, mainframe leases, specialized support, niche contractors, keeps rising. More budget is allocated to maintaining the past, less to building the future. It’s not just technical debt; it’s strategic deadlock.

New Market Realities That Core Cannot Support

That deadlock sits in sharp contrast to where finance is headed. Tokenization and blockchain infrastructures are redefining what a financial asset can be—fractional, programmable, instantly settled, and composable across platforms. AI is transforming how risk is modeled, how portfolios are managed, and how clients are served—with an insatiable demand for clean, timely, granular data. The Great Wealth Transfer is reshaping who holds assets and how they expect to interact with institutions—digitally, in real time, and hyper-personalized. All of these shifts share a common requirement: a core that behaves less like a nightly ledger and more like a real-time operating system for value. COBOL-era, batch-based cores cannot be stretched to play that role without increasing fragility and risk.

This is not merely about superficial innovation at the margins; it reflects a fundamental strain in core market infrastructure, which is reaching its breaking point precisely as client expectations, competitive pressures, and technological advancements evolve rapidly in unison. Legacy COBOL cores and batch workflows are colliding with a world that assumes 24/7 access, real-time settlement, radical transparency, and programmable products as baseline. At the same time, crypto, DeFi, and real‑world asset tokenization have moved from curiosities to live proofs of how value can move and be governed on modern rails. The question for incumbents is no longer if this transition will happen, but who will own it—and the rest of this article argues that tokenization, coupled with serious core modernization, will be the structural lever that separates tomorrow’s category leaders from tomorrow’s case studies in missed timing.

How DeFi Enablement Has Shifted Client Expectations

Now that we’ve established how COBOL-era cores and batch-based workflows have become binding constraints on institutional modernization, the next question is unavoidable: what has changed on the demand side?

The answer lies in timing and client expectations, influenced by DeFi and CeFi (centralized finance) platforms such as Coinbase and Binance.

Before the Genius Act, traditional finance (TradFi) leaders often viewed cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) as fringe and risky, unsuitable for their clients. Who can forget in 2023 when Jamie Dimon said, “If I was the government, I’d close it down.” While this view was somewhat valid and understandable in the past, institutions largely dismissed this technology as irrelevant, either perceiving it as a threat or as insignificant.

The growth of crypto has fundamentally altered customer expectations for financial services, with use cases becoming more concrete and established. The convergence of AI and quantum computing has also made this technological intersection almost impossible to ignore. Crypto and DeFi platforms now set new standards for user experience, moving beyond speculation to deliver a real-time, transparent, and programmable financial system that modern clients demand. Progressive traditional institutions can leverage this shift; those who ignore it risk falling behind in a rapidly evolving market.

Real-time access is perhaps the clearest expectation. In the crypto world, markets operate 24/7/365 – there are no “closed” hours. Traders can reallocate assets at 3 a.m. on a Sunday, and payments settle within minutes on blockchain networks. This always-on paradigm has influenced client mindsets well beyond crypto. As one infrastructure provider observed, “Traders now expect 24/7 markets, instant funding…the ability to move capital with the same speed they move information.” By contrast, traditional equity and FX markets, with their limited hours and end-of-day batch processes, feel increasingly archaic. The divide between these systems is collapsing because clients have tasted real-time finance and aren’t going back. Fintech apps like Robinhood and neobanks acclimated users to on-demand service, but crypto took it a step further – proving that even complex transactions can clear near-instantly without intermediaries. The message to TradFi: if Venmo, crypto exchanges, and stablecoins let people transact in seconds, why can’t their bank or broker?

Transparency as Proof, Not Promise

Radical transparency is another defining trait. Public blockchains allow any participant to verify transactions on a shared ledger in real time. DeFi protocols, in particular, are built on open-source code and visible liquidity pools, giving users an unprecedented line of sight into how their funds are used and what yield they earn. This is the opposite of traditional finance’s black boxes and delayed statements. Newer investors increasingly expect visibility and auditability. DeFi users can watch loans and collateral values update block by block and independently confirm that assets are where a platform says they are. Unsurprisingly, surveys show trust in financial institutions is low among younger demographics – they want proof, not promises. To them, blockchain’s transparency is a feature, not a bug. As the World Economic Forum notes, shared ledgers provide “increased visibility into ownership structures, transaction history, and asset provenance,” making fraud or manipulation easier to detect. While TradFi must protect privacy, it can still draw on DeFi’s ethos of real-time verification and push toward more open reporting, such as on-chain audit trails for asset-backed products.

Equally transformative is the emerging expectation of programmability in financial products. DeFi normalized the idea that money can be embedded with logic – “smart contracts” that automatically execute when conditions are met. Want dividends paid at 12:01 a.m. on the due date? That can be coded. Want a portfolio that auto-rebalances, or a loan that self-adjusts collateral requirements? Code that into the smart contract as well. These concepts are moving into the mainstream. Clients now ask why so many financial agreements remain static documents requiring manual intervention, when self-executing code could handle routine processes cheaply, consistently, and without bias.

They see crypto platforms offering programmable yield (interest distributed by code daily or per block) and wonder why their bank savings interest is paid only once a month, often with opaque calculations. They see automated market makers (AMMs) in DeFi enabling continuous, algorithmic trading of assets and wonder why certain securities only trade during specific hours or with human market-makers taking large spreads. Programmability = flexibility + automation, and it speaks to a generation raised on apps and APIs. In the words of a BIS task force, end users increasingly expect transactions that are “instantaneous, programmable and less costly,” with services where they can “manage their digital assets directly, with transparency and immutability”. Crypto didn’t invent these expectations, but it demonstrated them at scale.

What Clients Are Really Signaling

The key insight is that crypto and DeFi are not creating entirely new asset classes but are instead shifting expectations for how existing assets should perform. Prominent financial leaders have begun to acknowledge this shift. BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink, who had not historically been a crypto supporter, stated in 2025 that, “the next generation for markets... the next generation for securities, will be tokenization of securities.” His sentiment is echoed by many DeFi and TradFi leaders who recognize that ledger technology, the backbone of crypto, is enabling more efficient, more democratized markets. In fact, Jamie Dimon recently said, “We believe there are many uses where a blockchain can replace or improve contracts, data ownership, and other enhancements”.

Overall, crypto's progress indicates where all markets are heading. Institutions that are adopting or testing new products for their clients are more likely to seize these opportunities than traditional finance firms, especially those hesitant to invest in mainframe upgrades, crypto, or AI. Instead of viewing crypto and DeFi merely as external threats, they should be seen as signs of customer-focused innovation. The smart move is to identify key features like 24/7 access, real-time settlement, transparency, composability, and programmability that appeal to clients, and to provide these securely and in compliance. Some innovative banks are already offering instant payments around the clock or experimenting with smart contracts for bond settlements, understanding that customer expectations are evolving. The rise of crypto underscores the need for more flexible, transparent, and programmable financial services, giving traditional finance the opportunity to meet this demand if it acts swiftly.

Share The RWA Ledger

The Looming Tailwind: The Great Wealth Transfer, Digital Natives and the Demand for Change

If DeFi, CeFi, and fintech have reshaped expectations for how finance functions, the upcoming Great Wealth Transfer will determine who holds the assets that uphold those expectations. This movement, a significant trend, is poised to unfold over the next twenty years. An estimated $70 trillion to $120 trillion will shift from Baby Boomers to Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, and eventually Gen Alpha - groups that expect a digital-native, always-on financial infrastructure as standard, signaling the ramifications are far greater than just the transfer of wealth.

A New Cohort With a Different Portfolio

The data makes the mindset shift clear. In Bank of America Private Bank’s 2024 study of wealthy Americans:

• 72% of investors aged 21–43 agreed that “it’s no longer possible to achieve above-average returns solely with traditional stocks and bonds,” compared to just 28% of investors 44 and older.

• Younger wealthy investors show a much higher preference for alternative and digital assets—crypto, private equity, direct investments, and global opportunities—than older cohorts.

In practice, many of these investors started with Robinhood or Coinbase before engaging a traditional broker or adviser. They expect to be able to allocate capital to startups, tokens, fractional real estate, and global opportunities directly from their devices. They are also more likely to trust their own research and self-direct their portfolios using online platforms.

In short, the next generation of high-net-worth clients is digitally native, opportunity-seeking, and unimpressed by the old menu of mutual funds and 60/40 portfolios.

Always-On Engagement as the New Default

Their service expectations have shifted just as dramatically. As Capgemini’s wealth management consultants note, “Younger generations grew up with mobile apps, on-demand everything, and instant gratification. They don’t want to sit down for an annual review. They expect account data, performance, and recommendations in real time, on their phones.”

For advisors and institutions, this is no longer a once-a-year conversation; it is an “active engagement channel” that must deliver:

• Up-to-the-minute account and portfolio data

• Bite-sized, actionable insights delivered continuously

• The ability to execute decisions instantly, from anywhere

Digital natives want real-time financial engagement, period. If a firm cannot provide real-time portfolio tracking, quick answers via chat, and seamless on-the-go execution, clients will simply move to a firm that can.

New Assets, New Values, Old Pipes

Younger investors' preferences are shifting from those of previous generations. They show a much higher interest in private equity, venture capital, cryptocurrencies, global opportunities, and impact investing, while showing less interest in traditional stocks and bonds. This trend highlights the potential for broader macro expansion of tokenized assets, and underscores why the definition of tokenized RWAs should not be limited to yield-generating instruments—something strongly advocates. One survey indicates that 88% of young heirs prefer private equity over Boomers. Additionally, about 85% of Millennials and Gen Z are interested in ESG/SRI investing, compared to a smaller percentage of older investors.

Fintechs and digital platforms that offer fractional access to startups, tokenized real estate, art, and other alternatives are filling this gap across both product and user experience. They meet younger investors where they already are: mobile-first, on-demand, and self-directed.

But beneath the front-end apps, much of traditional finance is still running on COBOL-era, batch-based cores that:

• Reconcile cash and positions overnight, not continuously

• Make truly real-time portals difficult, brittle, or expensive to deliver

• Struggle to support 24/7 access, instant settlement, and programmable products that this cohort increasingly assumes as standard

• Hinders modernization and the full potential of AI, blockchain, and quantum technologies.

Some institutions have started to react. For example, one leading custodian, Apex, implemented a real-time ledger with straight-through processing (no overnight batching) so that information is up-to-date whenever a client logs in. Others are experimenting with broadcasting selected back-office data on-chain—as when BNY Mellon began publishing fund accounting data to Ethereum via smart contracts—to embed transparency into asset servicing.

These are not cosmetic UX upgrades; they are early moves toward the real-time operating system that delivers the value the next generation already expects.

A $100 Trillion Stress Test for Legacy Cores

This is where the Great Wealth Transfer intersects directly with the core modernization problem. As trillions in assets migrate to digital-native owners with near-zero tolerance for paperwork, delays, or clunky interfaces, firms face a binary choice:

• Modernize core infrastructure to support real-time, tokenized, programmable finance and capture a meaningful share of this $100 trillion+ opportunity; or

• Continue to patch aging COBOL cores and accept a steady attritional loss of relevance, as each inheritance event becomes a natural trigger for assets to leave for more modern platforms.

This transition won't occur all ‘big bang.' Instead, it will take place gradually through continuous, cumulative reallocations. Every estate settlement and generational change becomes a decision point, whether to reinvest, reallocate, or adjust asset distributions. These decisions will build up over time, influencing the overall shift. Each step presents a choice: should this capital remain in traditional institutions, which struggle to meet clients' urgent needs for flexible access to their finances, or shift to digital platforms that better reflect the modern digital environment?

Viewing the Great Wealth Transfer through this perspective reveals that the mindset of 'capturing all' wealth becomes less relevant. Instead, it prompts the industry to recognize how interconnected factors—such as changing demands, obsolete mainframes, and existing technological use cases—highlight the urgency to update outdated market infrastructure. What was once considered high-risk technology should now be seen as a necessary part of modern architecture, serving as a wake-up call to modernize.

Institutions that update their core systems to meet digital-native wealth expectations, such as real-time updates, transparency, programmability, and tokenization, are poised to become industry leaders. In contrast, those who delay these changes will fall behind. Platforms that operate like the rest of the digital world? This perspective suggests that the Great Wealth Transfer should not be seen as an ambitious “capture of all" by institutions, but as a warning that it is time to address failing legacy market infrastructure. Aligning core systems with the standards of digital-native wealth—instant, transparent, programmable, and tokenized—will position institutions as tomorrow’s leaders. Conversely, those who lag will realize that their main obstacle was never awareness of the issue, but timing.

Conclusion: Modernization as a Survival Decision

Taken together, the picture is clear. Client expectations shaped by DeFi, fintech, and always-on digital experiences are colliding with institutional systems that were never designed to operate in real time. The Great Wealth Transfer adds a clock: control over tens of trillions in assets is moving, on a defined timeline, to clients whose default assumption is immediacy, transparency, and programmability.

In this context, modernization is no longer just an optional upgrade or a matter of tech debt to address later. It is a vital survival choice essential to an institution's long-term success as competition intensifies for the next generation's wealth. Organizations that regard core infrastructure as mere background plumbing will inevitably face slower innovation, limited data capabilities, and services that become increasingly disconnected from the expectations of the populations they serve.

The alternative is uncomfortable but straightforward. Firms that invest in real-time, tokenization-ready cores capable of supporting continuous settlement, programmable assets, and AI-driven engagement will position themselves to shape the next standard in financial services rather than chase it. They don’t merely improve the interface; they re-architect how value moves. The notion that “modernization” is an option will steadily, predictably, and almost imperceptibly erode those institutions, until it is very hard to reverse.

Executives already know their systems are aging. They already see the bar being reset by digital-native platforms. The remaining question is not whether to modernize, or even how, but when institutions are willing to stop treating timing as a reason to defer. In a world where each estate settlement, advisor transition, and client onboarding is a moment of choice, delay is itself a decision—one that quietly hands future clients and future relevance to someone else.

Many technology and business leaders will reasonably ask, “What does modernization actually look like in practice?” There are emerging models—incremental core decompositions, greenfield digital banks alongside legacy stacks, tokenization pilots, and full core conversions—with real case studies, hard lessons, and concrete patterns for risk management and execution. Exploring those options in depth is beyond the scope of this piece, but it is the natural next question. In a follow-on write-up, we’ll examine how institutions are approaching core transformation and tokenization in the real world: what’s working, what isn’t, and how to avoid becoming yet another cautionary tale.

Marina Mendenhall-Valente
Partner, Tiburon Advisory Group | Founder of The RWA Ledger

The RWA Ledger is written by a former TradFi leader for today’s TradFi leaders, helping them confront the realities of crypto and tokenization before it’s too late.

Views are my own. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, endorsement, or investment solicitation.

From BlackRock’s USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL) — a tokenized institutional money-market fund issued on public blockchains for enhanced liquidity and digital settlement, to Franklin Templeton’s OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund (FOBXX), which records ownership directly on public infrastructure.
RWAs have officially gone mainstream.

But as Real-World Assets rise to prominence, their definition has subtly narrowed.
In practice, “RWA” has come to mean yield-bearing financial instruments that fit neatly inside existing DeFi primitives, which, in this landscape, are most often tokenized Treasuries and money-market products, which today account for nearly half of all on-chain RWA activity (TechFlowPost, 2025).

Analysts note that demand is driven almost entirely by yield, not innovation, with most protocols competing to tokenize the same low-risk, short-duration instruments (Blockhead, 2026). Even at major industry summits, panels on “RWA adoption” orbit around Treasuries, compliance wrappers, and liquidity strategies, rather than the broader question of what off-chain value can become when it’s made programmable (LinkedIn commentary, 2026).

This framing makes sense, particularly when considering early adoption and the pursuit of standardization, while demonstrating that yield-bearing instruments can indeed be tokenized. From this perspective, this approach is well-suited to a smoother pathway for pilot products that can be tokenized in a compliant manner while validating behavioral assumptions.

However, focusing on pilots as final product strategies overlooks a much bigger story: that portfolio strategies will fundamentally transform asset management and wealth management approaches in the next century. 

At The RWA Ledger, we believe RWAs aren’t just off-chain securities.
They’re the entire framework through which the world will operate its ability to own, price, and transfer value. To understand where DeFi is going, we have to understand - and appreciate - the story of what’s being digitized and why.

Subscribe now

The Crypto View: RWAs as Yield-Bearing Instruments

It’s not hard to see how we ended up here. The hyper-exuberance of 2021 pushed DeFi to its speculative limits, fueled by leverage, liquidity mining, and reflexive tokenomics. The correction that followed in 2022–2023 forced the ecosystem to mature. From that point forward, DeFi’s search for legitimacy required two things: real cash flows and a new narrative that could channel the industry’s imagination toward something tangible, defensible, and institutionally credible.

Real-World Assets (RWAs) as we know them today didn’t emerge overnight, but does that fully capture the story?

The idea of representing off-chain economic value on a blockchain long predates the recent RWA boom. Tokenization itself emerged as one of the earliest use cases for distributed ledger technology, appearing in academic and industry discussions as early as the 2017–2018 era, when proponents first envisioned digital “twins” of physical assets on programmable ledgers. These early concepts framed tokenization as the digital representation of physical or financial assets on a distributed ledger, enabling fractional ownership, transferability, and enhanced liquidity in markets that had previously been opaque or illiquid.

Experimentation began with tokenizing basic financial rights and collectible items, gradually expanding into more complex rights and ownership structures. Projects in the late 2010s sought to represent real estate, commodities, and other asset claims on blockchain networks, ideas that laid the conceptual groundwork for what would later be recast as “RWAs.” One early commercial example from 2018 was Harbor, a platform raising significant venture funding to tokenize real-world securities and bring blockchain efficiencies into traditional finance.

As blockchain ecosystems matured through the early 2020s, the vocabulary and rationale shifted. Early experiments in decentralized finance (DeFi) proved that smart contracts could execute trustless economic logic; the NFT boom highlighted that unique, tradable on-chain representations of value could capture broad interest; and institutional actors began to see tokenization not just as a technology experiment, but as a way to bridge traditional markets with decentralized infrastructure. By the mid-2020s, tokenizing liquid financial assets like government securities and money-market instruments became both technologically viable and far more institutionally palatable - effectively reframing RWAs from a broad philosophical idea into a practical narrative anchored in yield and regulation.

RWAs became that bridge.

The first wave of projects gravitated toward the familiar: assets that could produce yield, satisfy compliance teams, and plug seamlessly into DeFi’s existing architecture.
As a result, most current RWA initiatives cluster around a narrow, well-understood corner of the asset universe:

• Short-dated Treasuries → Ondo, MatrixDock, Maple

• Private credit and receivables → Centrifuge, Goldfinch

• Tokenized real-estate shares or structured notes → RealT, Tangible

These products make intuitive sense; they’re standardized, yield-generating, and relatively liquid. They also map neatly onto on-chain primitives - ERC-20 tokens, liquidity vaults, collateral modules, and stablecoin ecosystems.

In short: they fit the model.

But when RWAs are defined solely as tokenized bonds, we’ve already limited the conversation - treating the “real world” as whatever fits inside a bond wrapper.
That isn’t wrong - it’s just, quite frankly, incomplete.

For institutions and DAOs alike, this was the low-hanging fruit. U.S. Treasuries offered a “risk-free” yield of 5%; DeFi protocols could tokenize that yield and offer composable, permissioned access. It was the perfect narrative: crypto finds real yield.

And so far, it’s proven effective.

RWA-based stablecoin reserves, vaults, and funds helped restore confidence after the collapse of speculative DeFi. MakerDAO’s RWA program, for instance, generated over 60 % of its revenue from off-chain T-bill exposure by late 2024.
This shift demonstrated something powerful: on-chain infrastructure can, in fact, support institutional-grade assets safely and transparently.

But that same success story also defined the boundaries of the conversation.

Because when RWAs are defined solely as tokenized bonds or fixed-income products, we’ve already constrained the imagination of what’s possible.
We’ve equated the “real world” with yield-bearing paper, the safest, smallest slice of a much larger balance sheet.

For comparison:

• The global bond market is roughly $130 trillion.

• Real estate exceeds $330 trillion.

• Infrastructure, commodities, IP, and cultural assets combined dwarf both.

Yet almost all RWA volume today is concentrated in that first category, the one that already has liquidity, credit ratings, and custody infrastructure. We’re tokenizing the assets that least need tokenization while leaving trillions in illiquid, opaque, or inaccessible value off-chain.

That isn’t wrong, it’s just incomplete.

The next phase of RWAs extends beyond just trading and settling bonds faster. It focuses on transforming the very idea of provenance and ownership into assets that can be traded, transferred, and combined across all asset types. Whether it’s a Treasury bill, land, a music royalty, or a carbon credit, tokenization allows assets of any kind - regardless of jurisdiction - to be represented, securitized, and exchanged via interoperable platforms. This shift emphasizes not only control but also connectivity and the measurement of total and complete individual value.

Share The RWA Ledger

Reframing the Bridge: Where TradFi and DeFi Infrastructures Meet

If the first wave of RWAs in 2016–2018 was about proving that tokenization is technically feasible, and today’s wave is about showing that compliant pilots are achievable, then the next logical step is more fundamental: we have to ask what, exactly, is being connected and what kind of system we are building.

And before diving in, if you’re thinking of this as the creation of a new asset class, it’s not. We’re laying the groundwork for a new operating system for trust and value that keeps pace with today’s rapidly evolving world. So far, a narrow definition of RWAs primarily as yield-bearing financial instruments has shaped how both TradFi and DeFi have approached tokenization:

• TradFi optimizes for compliance, custody, and legal enforceability. Its core question is: Can we hold and enforce this asset in accordance with existing regulatory and fiduciary duties?

• DeFi optimizes for transparency, composability, and access. Its core question is: Can this asset be made programmable, permissionless, and interoperable on-chain?

Each side has built systems that work remarkably well on their own terms. But both are incomplete with respect to the full reality of ownership — the messy, jurisdictional, private, and multi-dimensional fabric of how value actually exists in the world.

TradFi: Trust Through Intermediation

Traditional finance establishes trust through intermediation - institutional infrastructure, yes, but in practice it’s far less about the systems themselves and far more about the relationships that sustain them. The banks, custodians, and asset managers, CFAs, CPAs, and attorneys have defined the last two centuries of finance as ultimately resting on a framework of human trust. Beneath that relational layer, TradFi’s infrastructure is built in tiers: custody, settlement, and securitization. These functions convert illiquid or complex positions into standardized, investable products. Custodians safeguard assets, registrars track ownership, and intermediaries, often private banks, advisors, and fiduciaries, coordinate execution and ensure compliance.

So, when we think about clients with multi-generational, multi-entity structures, cross-border exposure, or complex tax planning, those intermediaries become something far more than just service providers; they are trusted interpreters of the system - and look to those interpreters to advise them on the best ways to ensure their interests. There inlies the nuance and nature of the relationship: we will hold your assets, protect your information, and make the complexity disappear.

The result is a system optimized for scale and legal enforceability, one that fosters trust through oversight, discretion, and reputation rather than code. It works, but it does so by concentrating trust in institutions and relationships, and by accepting fragmentation as the price of privacy and control.

Privacy as Foundation, Fragmentation as Cost

Behind that operational machinery lies the real foundation of TradFi: privacy.

For clients with complex portfolios, the ability to preserve privacy while coordinating across legal, tax, and investment strategies enables wealth managers and family offices to act as stewards rather than transaction agents.

That same structure delivers trust, but it also creates fragmentation. The reality is that while some clients may maintain a single relationship with one advisor throughout their lives, many don’t; in fact, they use more than one institution during their lives and those of their families, for whom they are beneficiaries of those portfolios. Each firm maintains its own records and its own definitions of ownership. As a result, a client’s true balance sheet - their net worth, liquidity, and exposures - exists only as a composite view, stitched together across multiple systems and counterparties.

Fragmentation isn’t accidental; it’s structural. The same safeguards that enable and enforce privacy also widen the cracks where data can slip - and often do - creating duplication at best and exposure or breaches at worst. For advisors and institutional allocators, this holistic reality is a peripheral nuisance, undermining the accuracy of net-worth measurement, which remains the central metric on which mandates, strategies, and risk frameworks are built.

This is also why a narrow definition of RWAs as a handful of yield-bearing instruments is ultimately insufficient. If “real-world assets” are reduced to tokenized Treasuries and money-market products, we are only capturing a small, already-efficient slice of a client’s balance sheet. The reality of net worth - especially for complex, cross-border, or multi-entity clients - spans operating businesses, real estate, donor-advised funds, intellectual property, private holdings, and so-called “unmanaged assets held away” that rarely appear in consolidated reporting. Those positions matter just as much to the economics of a family, fund, or institution as a short-duration bond ladder.

That tension is one of the reasons client needs are evolving. But it is not the only one. There are broader drivers behind shifting expectations: demand for faster visibility, cross-border coordination, more granular risk attribution, and real-time access to underlying data — not just periodic, reconciled reports. The current architecture has begun to strain under its own design. The closed networks, restricted access, and institutional opacity that once guaranteed safety now limit agility, integration, and truly holistic portfolio construction.

Seen through that lens, the trade-off remains what it has always been: the system is safe, but siloed. And as long as ownership records, valuation logic, and legal claims remain fragmented across institutions and jurisdictions, it will be difficult - if not impossible - to credibly treat RWAs as merely a category of yield products. They are, instead, the infrastructure for representing the full balance sheet — and until we address that, we are only tokenizing the most convenient corner of it.

DeFi: Trust Through Transparency and the Architecture That Could Fix Fragmentation

Where TradFi built trust through relationships and discretion, DeFi set out to rebuild it through verification and code. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - and later, the speculative COVID-19 crisis cycle of 2021 - that shift became more permissive at the industry level, an opportunity to philosophically reset the narrative for blockchain-based technology, and proof that the financial system of tomorrow will be on-chain.

DeFi’s core principle was simple and radical: if every transaction can be verified, and every rule enforced by code, then integrity becomes a property of the system itself, not the institutions that operate within it. In that version, audits are continuous, risk is observable, and settlement is final, while eliminating the ability to change or redact records of transactions - the footprint of the owners and actions becomes forever embedded into the system - finality. As with any period of maturation, ideology, and infrastructure. For DeFi to bridge into the real economy, to interact with regulated capital markets, institutional treasuries, or sovereign funds, trust could no longer rest solely on transparency. It had to integrate privacy, compliance, and verifiability - all coexisting on a programmable layer.

This is where DeFi’s real potential begins to intersect with an expanded view of RWAs. Because if we define “real-world assets” solely as tokenized financial instruments, we miss the broader opportunity: using blockchain infrastructure to unify fragmented ownership data without sacrificing confidentiality.

From Transparency to Trust Architecture

In traditional finance, trust is conferred by intermediaries; in DeFi, it is created by verifiability. The emerging model - the one that RWAs actually demand - is neither purely intermediated nor purely transparent.

On-chain proofs don’t replace institutions; they inform them. Smart contracts become the connective layer that synchronizes how ownership, value, and risk are tracked across disparate systems. Oracle networks like Chainlink already provide the data infrastructure that bridges off-chain information with on-chain logic, securing over $9 trillion in transaction value by enabling verifiable feeds for real-world events, from market prices to proof-of-reserves.

And that bridge now extends even further through Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP), which enables secure, programmable communication between blockchains and traditional financial systems.
CCIP acts as a universal transaction and messaging layer, enabling tokenized assets, collateral data, and settlement instructions to move across public and private networks without manual reconciliation. In essence, it’s the missing interoperability fabric: a neutral protocol that lets assets and information flow between ecosystems without breaking compliance, custody, or risk controls.

The same infrastructure that makes ownership transparent to a protocol can keep it private to the world, through technologies like zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) and privacy-preserving computation. A validator can confirm that a family office holds sufficient collateral or meets a jurisdiction’s reporting standard without revealing underlying positions, counterparties, or strategy. In that sense, DeFi’s transparency does not inherently threaten institutional privacy; it can enable verifiable discretion, a critical step in ensuring compliance and solvency while preserving confidentiality.

“The future of financial infrastructure lies not in choosing between privacy and transparency, but in proving both can coexist.”
— Bank for International Settlements, Project Mariana Report (2023

Why Defining RWAs Broadly Matters

The future of verifiable privacy and interoperable ownership - and how we actually get there - depends on refusing to define RWAs narrowly as yield products and instead treating them as infrastructure primitives. Not as a new asset class, but as the mechanisms that ensure existing assets can be properly tokenized, managed, and operated within an environment that allows each of them to become a living object of proof:

• Proof of ownership - via legal enforceability and clear title.

• Proof of value - via verifiable oracles and market data.

• Proof of authenticity - via ZK-proven metadata, custody, and provenance.

In this model, the “real world” is no longer whatever happens to sit off-chain by default; it is what has been digitally reconciled across chains, custodians, and institutions. The broader the definition of RWAs, the more of that real-world complexity these proofs can represent - and the more of it the system, and the individuals within it, can protect. Confinement of RWAs to a narrow set of tokenized bonds and stable-yield instruments will risk the rebuilding of the very silos DeFi was designed to dissolve. We will have reproduced fragmentation - only this time, encoded in smart contracts instead of spreadsheets.

The goal is not to make everything transparent. It is to make ownership coherent - visible where it matters, and private where it must be. That coherence is what connects DeFi’s infrastructure to the institutional systems it once sought to replace. RWAs, broadly defined, are how those two worlds finally converge: a programmable layer of trust that unites the verifiability of open systems with the discretion of private ones.

The outcome isn’t simply “DeFi meets TradFi.” It is the emergence of a new financial substrate that unites privacy, interoperability, and ownership within a shared infrastructure - one capable of meeting the demands of a rapidly changing economy. And, of clients who now expect their financial lives to function with the same fluidity as any other digital service in a hyper-connected world. That infrastructure only works if we stop thinking of RWAs as yield - and start thinking of them as design.

Next in The RWA Ledger:

“ How Language will Define Infrastructure & What that Means for the Future of RWAs.”

Regulation begins not with rules but with discussions that lead to realizations and updated definitions aimed at understanding the future of finance. Our definitions of terms like “digital asset,” “tokenized security,” or “real-world asset” will significantly influence custody models and capital flows.

In our next piece, we’ll examine how language and evolving understanding around the terminologies associated with TradFi and DeFi asset classes are informing infrastructure, shaping what can be built, who can participate, and how trust is enforced across systems.

Subscribe now

Marina Mendenhall-Valente
Partner, Tiburon Advisory Group | Founder of The RWA Ledger

Bridging TradFi × DeFi Through Emerging Tech

Views are my own. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, endorsement, or investment solicitation.

When Liquidity Becomes the Market

Liquidity has long been the financial world’s oxygen: invisible, all-encompassing, and instantly indispensable when it starts to vanish. In 2021, a tidal wave of nearly $9 trillion in global stimulus didn’t just buoy asset prices; it fueled speculative frenzies from meme stocks to NFTs, making liquidity the star rather than the stagehand.

By 2025, the landscape will have undergone a fundamental change. Liquidity is no longer just a side effect of stimulus; it is now the very framework upon which markets are built. What was once a background variable has evolved into the backbone of modern finance; programmable, quantifiable, and enforced as much by algorithms and policy as by capital flows.

For institutional investors, liquidity is no longer an abstract force; it is engineered, managed, and actively shaped. In this new era, it acts less like a feature and more like the hidden circuitry of the market itself.

“Liquidity isn’t a market feature; it’s the market’s hidden architecture.”

Subscribe now

The Hidden Architecture of Liquidity

On Wall Street, liquidity is often reduced to a matter of available cash. But the reality is far more intricate. Liquidity is the unseen plumbing of global finance, the network of valves, reservoirs, and conduits engineered to keep capital flowing. Central banks, repo desks, primary dealers, and money market funds together form an interconnected system that quietly underpins every trade and transaction.

On October 31, 2025, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Standing Repo Facility (SRF) surged to a record $50 billion in usage, a spike that didn’t go unnoticed by seasoned Treasury traders. Beneath the headlines of economic stability, this was a warning signal: liquidity reservoirs were running shallower than official narratives suggested. Unlike quantitative easing, where monetary largesse is spelled out for all to see, the SRF operates in the background, injecting overnight liquidity surreptitiously to unclog market blockages. Think of it as “stealth QE”, policy support folded discreetly into market infrastructure.

Former BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes described it bluntly:

“If SRF balances are above zero, then we know the Fed is cashing the checks of politicians using printed money.”

Hayes’s perspective, provocative as it may be, highlights a broader shift. Today, liquidity is no longer simply the result of policy choices; it has become embedded, structural, and algorithmic. As volatility and funding stress emerge, liquidity pulses through the system by design, not decree. The infrastructure now thinks and reacts in real-time, adjusting flows as if the market itself had developed a circulatory system.

In this new era, liquidity is more than a lever. It’s the market’s silent engine, always running, rarely observed, and essential.

How liquidity flows in TradFi:

Think of liquidity in traditional finance as a carefully balanced chain:

Central bank → commercial bank → repo → corporate credit → market assets.

Every link matters. Disrupt the flow at any point, be it central bank policy, repo market hiccups, or pressure on corporate credit, and the impact ricochets across the entire system. A swelling Treasury General Account can drain reserves from banks, spark a spike in repo rates, and tighten conditions even for the safest borrowers. Each node amplifies risk, revealing just how intertwined and fragile the system can be.

Liquidity’s effects remain largely unseen, but they are never theoretical. When balance sheets expand, risk assets predictably surge, equities climb, bond yields compress, and even tokens in digital markets benefit. The transmission of liquidity is silent, but its consequences shape every portfolio and asset class.

In today’s interconnected markets, liquidity isn’t just a back-end process; it’s a sensitive, systemic pulse connecting every layer of finance.

Liquidity Across Systems: From Balance Sheets to Blockchains

The tightly connected flows of traditional finance reveal just how sensitive the entire system is to liquidity disruptions, yet this complexity hasn’t vanished with the dawn of digital markets. Instead, the very concept of liquidity is being rewritten. As capital marries code and infrastructure crosses into programmable territory, liquidity management shifts from physical pipes to digital rails, without abandoning its foundational logic.

Tokenization doesn’t replace the core plumbing of liquidity; it re-codes it. The players may be new and the velocity of movement noticeably faster, but the fundamental constraints endure. The chain from reserves to market assets persists - only now, each link can be engineered in software, monitored in real time, and governed by both policy and protocol.


TradFi → Tokenized flow:

This new architecture transforms liquidity into something closer to living software, adaptive, predictive, and always on. As TransOcean Lab writes:

“When liquidity is unified, markets start to behave like one continuous system, not disconnected fragments.”

The limitations of early DeFi, most notably, capital locked in static pools, are giving way to the next wave: “liquidity that can think.” Markets are evolving towards intelligent, self-balancing systems, where capital responds to spreads, volatility, and depth in real time.

The future of money is defined by liquidity intelligence: programmable, transparent, and capable of spanning both balance sheets and blockchains. This evolution isn’t just about technology; it’s about the logic and resilience of the market itself.

The new monetary logic is characterized by liquidity intelligence, being predictive, programmable, and transparent.

The Liquidity Illusion: Tokenization’s Promise and Its Limits

As the machinery of liquidity migrates from traditional to digital finance, a powerful narrative has emerged: “tokenization unlocks liquidity.” It’s an alluring promise, and one of the most persistent misconceptions in the space.

As Emma Channing puts it succinctly:

“The mere act of tokenizing an asset does not make it liquid.”

In reality, tokenization brings possibility, not inevitability. Turning an asset into a digital token may widen access and visibility, but it does not guarantee the presence of buyers and sellers. Market structure fundamentals endure: for every transaction, you still need market makers to provide depth, price discovery to anchor value, and regulatory clarity to instill confidence. Potential liquidity is not the same as an active market.

Traditional finance, or “TradFi,” relies on layers of regulated intermediaries to maintain reliably liquid markets. In decentralized finance, that scaffolding is swapped for code and incentives: automated market makers, liquidity pools, and protocols like Uniswap or Curve. They attract capital through mechanisms, such as LP tokens, fee distributions, and yield farming schemes, but these are incentives, not mandates. The invisible hand must still be enticed to act.

The lessons of TradFi persist. The same risks that drive volatility and stress in repo markets—slippage, herd behavior, and a sudden flight to safety—are equally present in tokenized environments. Liquidity is a moving target, never static or automatic. It must be maintained, not just manufactured. Several constraints shape the proper supply of liquidity, regardless of the technology layer:

Several constraints shape the proper supply of liquidity, regardless of the technology layer:

• Demand: Fractionalizing assets may lower barriers, but it does not conjure buyers.

• Market makers: There are a few firms capable of quoting real-world assets (RWAs) at a global scale.

• Regulation: Stringent KYC/AML requirements can impede spontaneous flows.

• Valuation: Price discovery in tokenized assets often lags underlying NAVs, widening bid-ask spreads and eroding confidence.“Liquidity can’t be tokenized into existence — it must be earned and kept.”

As Upside.gg’s primer reminds us:

“LP tokens act like balancing mechanisms and provide a sense of security to investors for the assets they deposit.”

Still, security alone does not create liquidity. The infrastructure is necessary, but not sufficient. In any context, liquid markets must be built, tended, and trusted.

In short, liquidity can’t be programmed into existence. It must be earned, and continually kept.

Policy as Infrastructure: Regulation and Systemic Liquidity

As liquidity evolves from silent enabler to explicit infrastructure, it has also become a lever of policy and a flashpoint for geopolitical strategy. Tokenization and stablecoins are now recognized as more than financial innovations; they are national-security priorities.

As Susan Joseph (Cornell) and Broadridge assert, these technologies form “the connective tissue between traditional and modern financial systems.”

The old backbone of finance relied on curated windows and measured processes: FedWire’s limited hours, T+2 settlement periods, and end-of-day risk checks. These rails were designed for a daylight economy, where liquidity could be monitored and dialed with intent. In stark contrast, tokenized systems operate at all hours, subjecting markets to a new vulnerability, instantaneous flows in the absence of round-the-clock regulation.

Joseph warns that:

“Current financial infrastructure cannot handle 24/7 instant liquidity.”

This risk is pushing regulators to redirect their focus. The debate is quickly shifting from how to regulate crypto assets to how to regulate liquidity itself. What matters now is the architecture of oversight; policies must be “fit-for-purpose, light-touch,” able to adapt as fast as technology. The question is no longer if regulation should evolve, but how quickly it can keep pace with programmable, borderless liquidity.

Data highlights how deeply integrated these flows have become. S&P Global finds a strong correlation of +0.75 between M2 growth and digital-asset performance since 2017, as well as a negative correlation of –0.33 with interest rate hikes. As the boundary between TradFi and DeFi erodes, so too does the insulation against market shocks; events in one system ripple instantly across the other.

Against this backdrop, regulators’ priorities crystallize:

• Transparency: Can every digital flow be continually audited?

• Resilience: Are markets designed to withstand macroeconomic stress in real-time?

• Accountability: Can compliance be built into the infrastructure to ensure legal traceability?

The truth is clear: liquidity may now move at code speed, but trust, regulation, and systemic safety still travel at the speed of law. Bridging this gap will define the next chapter for global markets.

The Intelligent Liquidity Era

The nature of liquidity is transforming, no longer just a static balance-sheet artifact, but a living, adaptive software layer embedded into the fabric of global markets. We’ve entered the age of “liquidity intelligence,” where capital flows are not only measured and monitored but also predicted, optimized, and automatically corrected in real-time.

TransOcean Lab aptly describes this as liquidity that learns, able to anticipate stress, reallocate seamlessly, and balance risk autonomously. Leading institutions are bringing this vision to life: BlackRock’s BUIDL Fund and Franklin Templeton’s OnChain Government Money Fund showcase tokenized treasuries as modern reserve instruments. Citi’s “Tokens, Money & Games” report and J.P. Morgan’s Onyx program position tokenization as the new foundation for private markets. Meanwhile, the BIS and Checkout.com are pioneering programmable settlement and compliance, turning monetary operations into real-time, coded logic.

Yet, with these advancements comes a new governance imperative. As markets become more composable and operate around the clock, policy and oversight must evolve just as rapidly.

Christine Lagarde’s warning is timely: “Stablecoins, particularly those that have the potential to reach a global scale, pose serious risks to financial stability, monetary policy transmission and the smooth functioning of payment systems.”

Our infrastructure is now continuous, meaning regulation, risk management, and market responses must be, too.

We have entered an era where:

• Liquidity behaves like software: endlessly programmable and adaptive to shocks.

• Regulation becomes infrastructure: compliance and execution merge as native components of code.

• Continuous markets demand continuous oversight: policy must keep pace with markets that never close.

Ultimately, the next frontier in market advantage won’t simply be holding more liquidity, but rather wielding smarter liquidity—capital that is intelligent, resilient, and ready for the systemic paradigm ahead.

As Broadridge and Cornell conclude,

“The next market advantage won’t be who has more liquidity, but who has smarter liquidity.”

Key Takeaways

• Liquidity has become an infrastructure, not just a stimulus.

• Tokenization re-codes existing flows but doesn’t erase old constraints.

• Deep markets remain a bottleneck; liquidity does not always equal depth.

• Law and code are merging into a unified operating standard.

• TradFi and DeFi liquidity correlations are strengthening, binding the old and new systems together ever more closely.

Looking Ahead

Next in The RWA Ledger:
“Regulation as Infrastructure | When Policy Becomes the Market Framework.”

Subscribe now

Marina Mendenhall-Valente
Partner, Tiburon Advisory Group | Founder of

The RWA Ledger

Bridging TradFi × DeFi Through Emerging Tech

Views are my own. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, endorsement, or investment solicitation.

Leave a comment

To clarify: Money20/20 has never been a conference strictly dedicated to cryptocurrency or emerging tech; since 2012, it has served as a broader confluence for the global financial services, fintech, and payments industries— a place where industry leaders in banking, founders, regulators, and infrastructure providers convene to network, share ideas, and ultimately shape the landscape of what comes next. The event’s evolving content provides a lens into what institutions value and what customers are demanding. As a payments firm, Dwolla, put it:

“Money 20/20 consistently serves as a bellwether for the financial services industry, reinforcing emerging trends while highlighting new opportunities.”

That’s why the conference’s 2025 emphasis on stablecoins, tokenization, and regulatory frameworks for institutional adoption marks a milestone.

In 2021, blockchain was exploratory at best — interest centered on early narratives, such as the emergence of CBDCs and NFTs, which were often tucked into side panels or framed as speculative glimpses into the future of digital assets. A Money20/20 recap from the firm, Nelson Mullins, noted that topics such as crypto custody and regulated stablecoins were gaining traction, but remained positioned as edge innovation.

That year was also defined by the risk-on exuberance of the “degen” era — fueled by pandemic-era quantitative easing and record levels of liquidity. Investors chased speculative assets, from soaring tokens and profile-pic NFTs to virtual land grabs. Then came the crash (remember FTX), exposing the legal and regulatory vacuum that had enabled it all.

But that collapse didn’t kill blockchain. It clarified what needed to change.

As Amy Fisher, Head of Partnerships at Taxbit, discussed with Fintech.TV’s Remy Blaire, during a Money 20/20 segment:

“Regulation really legitimizes and solidifies digital assets’ place within the economy.”

She emphasized the crypto industry is advocating for clearer tax regulations — something that TaxBit is working closely with major firms like KPMG and Deloitte on to ensure clients receive the best guidance possible. She goes on to speak about 2025, real-world assets, and programmable money, noting that they have taken center stage — a shift from hype narratives to infrastructure and regulatory developments in the making.

Subscribe now

Is the Stablecoin Surge Affording Blockchain a Mainstream Moment?

The transformation discussed at Money20/20 isn’t aspirational — it’s already underway.

According to Citibank’s September 2025 Stablecoins 2030 report, “Stablecoins are a catalyst for blockchain’s ChatGPT moment in institutional adoption.” This is substantiated by the acknowledgment that stablecoin issuance volumes have surged - enabling them to reach approximately $280 billion this year, with revised projections pushing their 2030 base case to $1.9 trillion and bull case to $4.0 trillion. With expected transaction velocity, this could support $100–$200 trillion in payment flows — rivaling today’s fiat rails in scale.

Crucially, this growth isn’t limited to crypto-native players. Citi projects that tokenized bank deposits and deposit tokens — favored by corporates for their trust, compliance, and ease of integration — could outpace stablecoins in volume by 2030. Already, enterprise treasuries are exploring programmable money for real-time settlement, embedded compliance, and improved capital efficiency.

This signals a critical inflection point: financial institutions are moving beyond pilots into real integration. The final hurdle? Clear and enforceable regulation.

For traditional finance, this isn’t about reinventing capital markets — it’s about re-platforming them. Bonds, treasuries, real estate, and private credit remain the same underlying instruments — but now their ownership, proof, and transfer can be encoded as data and transmitted across trusted networks in real-time. Manual reconciliation gives way to automated, on-chain verification. Settlement and compliance happen at the speed of code.

The key takeaway? Speculative assets will not drive the next wave of value creation, but rather infrastructure that connects existing value across interoperable systems. Ownership, proof, and settlement now converge within the same digital fabric — reducing friction, minimizing intermediaries, and opening once-inaccessible markets.

That’s where themes from this year’s Money20/20 begin to converge. As Checkout.com’s Meron Colbeci explained,

“The multi-trillion-dollar opportunity in agentic commerce will only be unlocked if users trust agents to act on their behalf.”

This isn’t just about trust in users — it’s about trust in systems. In the words of Colbeci and Altimetrik’s Ignacio Segovia:

“In the agentic era, it’s no longer enough to have KYC (Know Your Customer); we need KYA — Know Your Agent.”

This matters for the future of blockchain because verifiable infrastructure, such as stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and on-chain identity working together, is crucial for a world where agent-enabled payments are a reality — it’s building the framework of trust in agent-driven economies. Regulation and data provenance become the rails for AI-native commerce, just as programmable money becomes the payload.

As new legislation, such as the GENIUS Act, emerges, so do the necessary legal compliance and regulatory frameworks to support future applications that enable enterprise use and adoption of emerging technologies, including stablecoins. Enterprises seek programmable settlement and compliance, and we are seeing the early formation of a trust network — one where the speed of execution doesn’t outpace the assurances of verification.

And that’s why real-world assets, programmable money, and verifiable identity are becoming foundational to the evolution of tomorrow’s on-chain economy.

The Infrastructure Is Here — Now Policy Must Move the Needle

If the first decade of blockchain was about proving digital ownership, the next is about proving everything else — identity, rights, collateral, and cash flows — in ways that are composable, compliant, and instantly verifiable. This is the rewiring now underway, where data doesn’t just record value — it enables it.

As highlighted at Money20/20 USA 2025, this isn’t just a technological shift — it’s a systems shift. The elevation of real-world assets (RWAs), programmable money, and tokenized settlement to main-stage topics reflects a maturing narrative: value today is no longer just issued, it’s composed, proven, and interoperable by design.

In traditional finance, trust has historically been intermediated — anchored and enforced by custodians, transfer agents, clearinghouses, and compliance teams. These institutions verify that assets are genuine, values are matched, and risk is managed. But this legacy infrastructure is slow, redundant, and expensive. The average bond trade still settles on a T+2 basis, and cross-border payments can involve as many as 10 intermediaries before funds reach their destination.

Tokenization fundamentally transforms existing hierarchies. Instead of managing isolated documents and approvals across separate systems, static records become programmable, verifiable data primitives — self-executing digital representations of financial rights. A bond coupon, royalty payment, or property dividend no longer needs reconciliation. It settles the moment the conditions are cryptographically validated on-chain.

This paradigm explains why global institutions are revisiting their operating models. CEO Larry Fink recently stated the financial industry is at “the beginning of the tokenization of all assets,” describing the approach as “repotting” assets like ETFs into digital formats, pointing to the firm’s tokenized money market fund and expanding digital asset platform as examples.

— enabling instantaneous settlement and auditability. Similarly, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has emphasized that “tokenisation can enhance efficiency and open new possibilities in cross-border payments, securities markets and beyond, while maintaining the key principles of sound money: singleness, elasticity and integrity.”

Trust isn’t eliminated — it’s reshaped. Instead of depending on fragmented ledgers and retrospective audits, parties now operate from a shared, verifiable source of truth. This source incorporates settlement finality, risk parameters, compliance traceability, and action enablement directly into the code, allowing for more seamless integration. As a result, systems can coordinate in real time rather than only reconciling their data afterwards.

This next-gen operating model — where verifiable identity, programmable value, and policy enforcement converge — was a core theme at this year’s Money20/20. But trust isn’t just an infrastructure challenge; it’s a product strategy. As Casap CEO Shanthi Shanmugam put it, “Trust isn’t a marketing metric — it’s fintech’s operating system.” When systems scale without reliability, or automate without accountability, the result isn’t efficiency — it’s erosion. In this context, trust must be as programmable as the value it carries.

AI is quickly advancing this logic. Machine learning models can now detect anomalies, evaluate counterparty risk, and verify transaction patterns in milliseconds. However, even the most advanced AI systems rely on trustworthy data. This is where blockchain’s verifiable provenance becomes essential—building a reliable foundation for autonomous decision-making and programmable enforcement.

By integrating AI’s predictive abilities with on-chain provenance, institutions move from reactive compliance to continuous, real-time assurance. This is what Money20/20 has dubbed the architecture of trust: a next-gen operating model where verifiable identity, programmable value, and policy enforcement converge.

Policy is catching up. The GENIUS Act, passed in mid-2025, represents the first comprehensive U.S. regulatory framework for stablecoins and sets a precedent for governing blockchain-native financial infrastructure. Speaking at the event, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould made the case for integrating digital assets inside the banking system:

“From my perspective as a regulator, I’d rather see these activities done within the banking system, where we can manage the risks associated with them,” Gould stated, signalling the OCC’s preference for bringing digital asset operations under federal oversight rather than leaving them outside of traditional banking.

The combination of verifiable data, agentic infrastructure, and programmable money is forging a new trust layer — not to decentralize blindly, but to build an interoperable compliance framework where enforcement and execution occur at the same speed. Institutions are no longer just talking about modernization; they are actively rebuilding the core logic of financial systems from the ground up.

Interoperability and the New Data Commons

The promise of RWAs isn’t realized in isolation. It’s discovered in coordination — where assets, oracles, contracts, and actors operate across domains without loss of fidelity. This is what interoperability enables: a programmable layer that allows institutions to plug into shared markets without having to build from scratch.

At Money20/20 USA 2025, it became clear this is no longer a fringe ambition. From Chainlink’s CCIP, Pyth Network’s data oracles, or custodial tooling from Fireblocks, the connective tissue of next-gen capital markets is solidifying. And it’s doing so with one goal in mind: composability at scale.

What emerges is a data commons — where carbon credits in Kenya, government bonds in France, and private credit portfolios in the U.S. can interact under enforceable conditions.

This evolution also points toward a new frontier: quantum interoperability — the ability to connect not just blockchain networks, but entire digital ecosystems, including edge computing, decentralized identity, and agentic AI. In this paradigm, institutions won’t just send assets across chains; they’ll transmit complete execution environments where data, rights, and enforcement travel together.

The convergence of blockchain and AI is critical here. Real-time inference engines depend on trustworthy inputs. Decentralized agents require verifiable credentials. In this mesh, interoperability becomes the logic layer that allows trust to persist — a mechanism that transforms fragmented systems into composable economies.

This isn’t speculative — it’s already happening:

• The European Investment Bank launched its second digital bond on Goldman Sachs’ GS DAP^® platform.

• The World Bank continues to issue programmable debt instruments.

• Project Guardian links shared ledgers and tokenized bank liabilities, enhancing liquidity and efficiency.

As Erica Woods, Stripe’s Head of U.S. State & Local Public Policy, put it during Money20/20:

“Don’t wait for policy to be an afterthought. Know your regulators before you need them — so when you do, you’re ready.”

That mindset reflects where the industry is headed: interoperability will not be achieved through code alone — it will be codified through collaboration between policymakers and key industry players. What’s forming isn’t just a technical upgrade; it’s a negotiated framework of rules, rights, and real-time coordination.

The throughline is clear: when infrastructure aligns with policy, experimentation scales and participation expands. Interoperability enables the system to grow — not through centralization, but through the adoption of shared standards. And that’s how finance opens itself to billions more.

The Next Phase: Infrastructure, Institutions, and Interoperability

The infrastructure era has arrived — and it’s no longer theoretical.
What once lived in whitepapers is now deployed in central banks, multinational pilots, and boardroom budgets. In 2025, the shift is no longer about technology alone — it’s about how institutions and standards scale that technology into a new financial operating system.

The composability, or modularity, of tokenized systems is reshaping how we build. Real-time compliance, programmable liquidity, and verifiable provenance are no longer fringe ideas — they’re embedded in central bank discussions, enterprise roadmaps, and active pilots.

Governments are leaning in: The EU’s 2024 Digital Public Infrastructure report calls verifiable data a sovereign function. The U.S. GDP data pilot, leveraging Chainlink and Pyth, signals a clear intent to use open infrastructure. From Estonia’s e-residency to Singapore’s Project Guardian, a programmable, interoperable framework for value is taking shape.

And yet, complexity grows. New infrastructure introduces new complexity. AI-native agents, privacy-preserving compute, and dynamic regulatory landscapes demand systems that are secure, adaptable, and interoperable by design. As digital assets converge with intelligent automation, trust must become not just an outcome — but an embedded feature.

This is where blockchain and AI begin to overlap: through the architecture of trust. As discussed at Money20/20 2025, the rise of agentic commerce signals a future where autonomous agents act on behalf of consumers. But autonomy without verifiability is a risk. That’s why KYA — Know Your Agent — is emerging as the counterpart to KYC. In this world, agents must be authenticated, accountable, and authorized — and it’s programmable infrastructure that makes that possible.

If Money20/20 is any indicator, the contrast between 2021 and 2025 is stark. What was fringe is now foundational. What was speculative is now programmable. The 2026 agenda says it plainly: agentic AI, a rewired money stack, and compliance as infrastructure - is forthcoming.

The technology is here. The market is ready. But the unlock is still policy — because tokenized systems don’t scale without standards, institutional adoption won’t accelerate without legal clarity. And finance won’t replatform until trust is enforceable — not just in code, but in law.

Data Context

2021 Recap:

→ $9 trillion of liquidity injected globally (2020-21) - (Green Economy Coalition)

→ 0% rates and stimulus-fueled risk-on speculation - (Reuters)

→ $210B+ invested across 5,684 fintech deals—the second-highest annual total. (KPMG)

→ 7B adults were unbanked globally in 2021— 2/3 owned a mobile phone. (World Bank)

→ $50B in online retail and marketplace vol. ran through BNPL platforms in 2021. (Bain)

2021 Market Themes:

→ CBDCs move from concept → pilot deployments 14% of CBs - (BIS)

→ NFT sales $82M → $17.7B - (NEAR Foundation)

→ DeFi users grew from 940k in 20’ to over 20M in 21’—a 2,000% increase. (CoinLaw)

→ 2021, Affirm announced plans to let BNPL users buy and sell crypto— (PYMNTS)

Updated Editor’s Note

Editor’s note: This feature was updated to include 2021 macro and market data drawn from BIS, Citi, KPMG, World Bank, and others, providing additional context for the liquidity cycle that shaped blockchain’s early adoption.

—
Marina Mendenhall-Valente
Partner, Tiburon Advisory Group | Founder of
Bridging TradFi × DeFi Through Emerging Tech

Views are my own. This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, endorsement, or investment solicitation.

Leave a comment