The Asset State SeriesTen parts on why an asset’s state — not its representation — is the hard problem in tokenization.Read the series →
Solutions · Depositories & market infrastructure

You are the system of record. Tokenization decides whether you stay one.

Every argument for tokenization is an argument about who holds the authoritative record. That is your business. The only question is whether the tokenized instrument settles through you, or around you.

THE ASSET-TO-MARKET STACKAppsWhere citizens and investors transactLicensed distributor platformsPARTNER LAYEREnablementOnboarding, compliance and integration for regulated firmsRihlaOwnership recordSovereign rails — title recorded at the national registerDaftarYOU ARE HEREProvenanceVerified origin and chain of custodyCépage
Where you sit, and what has to exist beneath you.
Where you are

The situation, as we usually find it.

Your position is structural, not defensible by default

Your power comes from being the single place the record lives. A shared ledger offers the same property — which makes it either the biggest threat to your mandate or the largest expansion of it.

Reconciliation is your revenue and your exposure

Much of post-trade cost exists because ledgers disagree. Infrastructure that removes the disagreement removes the cost — and some of that cost is your income.

The mandate question comes before the technology question

Whether you may hold, settle or register a tokenized instrument is usually left open in your governing statute. That is the first thing to fix.

What blocks you

Three things stand in the way — and none is solved by technology alone.

Blocker 1

Does the record become the asset?

Anchoring a hash to a chain is cheap and changes little. Making the on-chain record the authoritative one changes everything, your legal exposure included. Most programmes never make the choice explicitly.

Blocker 2

Interoperation with existing settlement

A tokenized instrument has to settle against cash, meet your existing DvP model, and appear correctly in participants' books. Parallel rails are a migration problem, not a launch problem.

Blocker 3

Participant readiness

Your participants' operations, not your architecture, will set the pace. Any design that requires them all to change at once will not launch.

The journey

From where you are to a live, admitted product.

Highlighted steps are the ones we carry end to end. A first asset runs 14–24 weeks — phases overlap where they can. Each subsequent asset in the same class reuses most of the work.

01

Strategic position

Decide what you want to be in a tokenized market — registrar, settlement layer, or both.

2–3 wks
02

Anchor-or-tokenize decision

The single decision that determines everything downstream, taken with its legal consequences on the table.

2–3 wks
03

Target architecture

Chain topology, record authority, settlement model, participant interface.

3–5 wks
04

Mandate and regulatory alignment

Statutory changes, supervisory approval and participant rulebook amendments.

4–7 wks
05

Pilot instrument

One instrument, one participant cohort, real settlement, bounded exposure.

3–6 wks
06

Integration and migration

Parallel running, participant onboarding, and the path off the legacy rail.

ongoing
Why us, here

Relevant experience, not a capability list.

We have built one

Our board includes the architect of a national securities depository and its KYC registry, and a former head of distributed systems for a national payments and CBDC programme.

Record-level tokenization, delivered

A national register taken from an authoritative database to an authoritative on-chain record — legislation included.

We have published the argument

What a depository becomes when the record it holds is the asset, not a claim on one, is part of our Asset State series.

In a tokenized market the record is the asset. The only question is whether it is still yours.

Tell us the asset and the market. You will get back a route, a sequence and a time to market — not a proposal deck.

Other routes