A
Audrey Nesbitt
Guest
Turning assets into digital tokens is getting easier. Making it pay off is the hard part.
Crypto's highly visible trading markets have created a misleading expectation for businesses seeking capital: tokenize an asset and the buyers will come.
A founder who owned several mining assets approached me with exactly that expectation. He wanted to know how quickly he could launch a token and start raising money. He assumed that demand for crypto would translate into demand for his mining assets.
But owning a token tied to a mining asset is a very different investment from holding Bitcoin or Ether. Investors would need to understand what the token entitled them to, the risks of the project and how they might earn a return. Those questions had to come before the launch.
I've had some version of that conversation with mining companies, commodity producers, fund managers and private businesses many times. As major financial institutions adopt tokenization, more of them will ask whether it could work for them. The answer depends on what the technology improves, who will invest and whether the benefits justify the cost.
The infrastructure is advancing. In July, DTCC processed live transactions using tokenized securities held at its depository, with a broader production launch expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. The SEC also approved rule changes allowing Nasdaq and NYSE to support tokenized shares.
In September, the SEC granted conditional exemptions for certain venues trading tokenized versions of US exchange-listed stocks. That is a development in secondary trading, not a general exemption for companies issuing new securities.
Other markets are moving at their own pace:
These changes matter because they expand the infrastructure through which eligible assets can move. They do not establish that tokenizing a small private offering will make it cheaper to finance or easier to sell.
Large institutions can spread implementation costs across substantial assets and repeated transactions. A smaller company raising capital once faces a very different calculation.
"Tokenizing a mine" sounds straightforward until someone asks what the buyer receives. Shares in the company? A contractual royalty? A claim on future deliveries? Ownership of vaulted metal?
Each gives the investor different rights and exposes them to different risks. Each also creates different obligations for the issuer. That is why you can tokenize almost any asset, but not without first defining the legal right the token represents, confirming who owns it and establishing how it can be issued and transferred.
The distinction is not simply between crypto and securities: some crypto tokens are themselves securities. What matters is the substance of the investment. A company issuing tokenized shares is offering ownership in a business, with the rights, risks and regulatory requirements that entails. Transfer restrictions do not necessarily prevent tokenization, but they must be reflected in the structure and the system.
The technology also needs a legally effective connection to the investment. A token moving between wallets must produce the intended change in ownership under the applicable arrangements. SEC staff explained in January that recording a security on a blockchain does not change how federal securities laws apply. Their statement also distinguishes structures where the blockchain forms part of the official ownership register from those relying on an off-chain register.
That distinction is more consequential than the choice of blockchain. Investors need to know what they own and how they can enforce it.
Another project I consulted on had a different problem. The company was a structural mess: unclear ownership of key assets, agreements that restricted transfers and a corporate setup no investor would want to diligence. The founder hoped tokenization would get him around the obstacles that had stalled conventional financing. I told him plainly that it wouldn't.
Investors in a tokenized offering ask the same questions as investors in any other offering. Who owns the asset? Is the structure sound? Who is running the business? What is the asset actually worth? If those answers are weak, a token doesn't help. Ownership records become more transparent and permanent, and regulators are watching this market closely.
The work that makes a company investable comes first: cleaning up the structure, securing clear title, getting board approval and engaging securities counsel. Tokenization is what you do after that work, not instead of it.
The cost of creating a token says little about the cost of completing an offering. Minting can cost a few hundred dollars. A compliant raise is another matter, and the biggest variable isn't the technology. It's whether you already know your investors.
Consider the same $3 million raise under two strategies. The figures are illustrative, based on the deals we've worked on, and every deal differs:
Two things stand out. The technology is the smallest line in both columns. And marketing, the cost most often left out of the budget, is what separates them.
That's broadly in line with conventional small raises, which shows these are mostly the costs of raising capital, not a tokenization penalty. In the US, Reg A+ offerings are estimated to cost around 10% of the capital raised all-in, and Canadian brokered placements commonly pay a 6% cash commission before legal, audit and marketing. Our figures count cash costs only. In Canadian deals, brokers often also receive warrants, a further cost paid in dilution.
Larger raises spread the fixed legal and audit costs more thinly, but commissions and marketing tend to scale with the amount raised. Size helps, but it doesn't make the problem disappear.
Most companies underbudget marketing
In our experience, marketing is the line companies most often underestimate. They assume the platform will bring buyers, so they plan for the technology and the lawyers and stop there.
Specialists' guidance reflects the same pattern. Reg A+ advisers at CrowdCheck and Dalmore recommend budgeting from the high single digits to about 10% of a large offering for marketing. Smaller raises aimed at new or retail investors typically need a bigger share, because the cost of reaching people is spread over less money.
Selling a token to people who have never heard of you is a full capital-raising campaign: investor materials, outreach, events and follow-up, with every piece reviewed for compliance because securities rules limit who you can market to and what you can say. It doesn't end at launch, either. Holders need continuing disclosure and investor relations for as long as the token exists. A company that skips the broker to save the commission usually spends more on marketing instead. The cost moves; it doesn't disappear.
Tokenizing to reach investors you already have is a financing decision. Tokenizing to find investors you don't have is a marketing campaign, and it's priced like one.
What tokenization itself adds
Not all of that bill belongs to tokenization. Much of the work exists in conventional financing too. A fair budget separates three categories:
If a tokenized structure adds $60,000 in net costs to a $3 million raise, that's two percentage points. If the only benefit is $10,000 a year in administrative savings, recovering it takes six years. Faster settlement, access to a specific investor group or repeated future issuance could change that. A claim that the token itself is inexpensive cannot.
Ask vendors to price the same scope, including continuing charges and exit arrangements. A percentage of capital raised, a fixed implementation fee and an annual servicing charge can produce very different economics over the investment's life.
There are documented operational gains. In September 2024, Siemens issued a €300 million digital bond that settled automatically within minutes using a permissioned blockchain and the Bundesbank's payment solution. Siemens said its earlier €60 million digital bond had required two days to settle.
The comparison is instructive: both bonds were digital. The improvement depended on the surrounding settlement infrastructure, including how the money moved. Siemens demonstrated a specific benefit in completing the exchange of securities and cash. It did not show that tokenization reduced the bond's total issuance cost or interest rate.
For another issuer, the benefit might be automating recurring distributions or connecting to investors whose systems already support tokenized holdings. Those are propositions to measure. Which process changes? How much work disappears? Will the investors actually use it? An issuer with frequent transactions has more opportunity to recover implementation costs than one with a single offering and a small investor register.
A token doesn't come with buyers. Before treating a tokenized offering as a financing plan, a company needs to answer three questions: who would want this investment, why would they buy it, and how will we reach them?
A platform may offer introductions or distribution services, but examine those separately from its technology. Which investors can it actually reach, in which jurisdictions, and what comparable offerings has it helped complete?
Lower investment minimums can widen participation, but they also increase the number of investors who need onboarding and ongoing service. International reach brings its own questions about eligibility, marketing rules and compliance. Investor access is a legal question before it is a technology one.
The companies that raise successfully through tokenization usually already have investors: an existing shareholder base, institutional relationships or a broker who can place the deal. The token makes the transaction more efficient. It doesn't create the demand.
Round-the-clock trading in major crypto assets creates another false expectation: that a newly issued token tied to a business will be just as easy to sell. But being able to transfer a token does not guarantee a market for it. Three things have to line up:
Before describing an offering as liquid, an issuer should be able to name the permitted trading route, the eligible buyers and evidence of actual demand. Access to a marketplace is a chance to find a counterparty, not a promise of an exit.
If any asset looks made for tokenization, it's a physical commodity, and gold is the proof. The tokenized gold market passed $5 billion in the first quarter of 2026, and the World Gold Council, the industry body for gold miners, is now pushing shared infrastructure to standardize how gold tokens are issued and redeemed.
But two issuers, Tether Gold and Paxos Gold, dominate that market. The concentration shows what success takes: trusted custody, regular audits, regulatory standing, deep liquidity and a brand investors already know. A commodity token also carries its own running costs: vaulting and insurance, independent attestations that the metal is really there, and redemption arrangements for holders who want the physical asset.
A token representing vaulted gold and a token financing future mine production are very different investments. The first depends on custody, verification and redemption. The second exposes investors to the producer's ability to deliver, where geology, financing, construction and operating performance all matter. It's usually treated as a security, not a commodity.
Royalties, streams and prepayments can provide contractual structures for production-related financing. They still require negotiation, diligence and jurisdiction-specific legal analysis. Avoiding an equity issue doesn't make the financing free: the producer still commits future revenue or deliveries, and tokenization doesn't remove those obligations.
The relevant question is whether the digital structure improves a defined part of that transaction, for example administering payments more efficiently for an identified investor group. That case has to stand on its own, separate from the demand for tokens backed by metal already in a vault.
A company considering tokenization should be able to answer five questions:
The strongest case combines an investable asset, identifiable demand and a process that genuinely benefits from the technology. Where those benefits remain speculative and the added costs are immediate, conventional financing deserves serious consideration.
Wall Street's investment in tokenization makes the option more credible, and costs will keep falling as the infrastructure matures. But it doesn't supply a ready market for every company that issues a token, and it doesn't move the hard parts of raising capital onto the blockchain.
So yes, you can tokenize almost any asset. Whether you should depends on a specific benefit, a credible financing plan and investors who want the underlying investment. Get those right, and the technology can make a good deal better. Skip them, and it becomes an expensive way to learn the same lessons.
This article provides general information, not legal, tax or investment advice. Regulatory references reflect sources checked in October 2026. The cost ranges reflect our own experience and will vary by deal; the $3 million example is hypothetical.
Crypto's highly visible trading markets have created a misleading expectation for businesses seeking capital: tokenize an asset and the buyers will come.
A founder who owned several mining assets approached me with exactly that expectation. He wanted to know how quickly he could launch a token and start raising money. He assumed that demand for crypto would translate into demand for his mining assets.
But owning a token tied to a mining asset is a very different investment from holding Bitcoin or Ether. Investors would need to understand what the token entitled them to, the risks of the project and how they might earn a return. Those questions had to come before the launch.
I've had some version of that conversation with mining companies, commodity producers, fund managers and private businesses many times. As major financial institutions adopt tokenization, more of them will ask whether it could work for them. The answer depends on what the technology improves, who will invest and whether the benefits justify the cost.
What Wall Street's progress actually means
The infrastructure is advancing. In July, DTCC processed live transactions using tokenized securities held at its depository, with a broader production launch expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. The SEC also approved rule changes allowing Nasdaq and NYSE to support tokenized shares.
In September, the SEC granted conditional exemptions for certain venues trading tokenized versions of US exchange-listed stocks. That is a development in secondary trading, not a general exemption for companies issuing new securities.
Other markets are moving at their own pace:
| Market | Where things stand |
|---|---|
| Canada | Existing securities law applies. The CSA's Project Tokenization is gathering industry input; no dedicated framework yet. |
| European Union | Tokenized securities fall under MiFID II, not MiCA, as ESMA's guidelines confirm. The DLT Pilot Regime is being reformed, and the Commission is consulting on expanding MiCA. |
| United Kingdom | Security tokens sit inside the FCA perimeter. The FCA and Bank of England are drafting a tokenisation roadmap. |
| Hong Kong | First stablecoin issuer licences granted in April, with plans to expand rules for tokenized gold. Mainland-linked projects face added scrutiny. |
| South Korea | Security token law passed in January, expected to take effect in early 2027. |
These changes matter because they expand the infrastructure through which eligible assets can move. They do not establish that tokenizing a small private offering will make it cheaper to finance or easier to sell.
Large institutions can spread implementation costs across substantial assets and repeated transactions. A smaller company raising capital once faces a very different calculation.
Start with what investors would own
"Tokenizing a mine" sounds straightforward until someone asks what the buyer receives. Shares in the company? A contractual royalty? A claim on future deliveries? Ownership of vaulted metal?
Each gives the investor different rights and exposes them to different risks. Each also creates different obligations for the issuer. That is why you can tokenize almost any asset, but not without first defining the legal right the token represents, confirming who owns it and establishing how it can be issued and transferred.
The distinction is not simply between crypto and securities: some crypto tokens are themselves securities. What matters is the substance of the investment. A company issuing tokenized shares is offering ownership in a business, with the rights, risks and regulatory requirements that entails. Transfer restrictions do not necessarily prevent tokenization, but they must be reflected in the structure and the system.
The technology also needs a legally effective connection to the investment. A token moving between wallets must produce the intended change in ownership under the applicable arrangements. SEC staff explained in January that recording a security on a blockchain does not change how federal securities laws apply. Their statement also distinguishes structures where the blockchain forms part of the official ownership register from those relying on an off-chain register.
That distinction is more consequential than the choice of blockchain. Investors need to know what they own and how they can enforce it.
Tokenization doesn't fix the company underneath
Another project I consulted on had a different problem. The company was a structural mess: unclear ownership of key assets, agreements that restricted transfers and a corporate setup no investor would want to diligence. The founder hoped tokenization would get him around the obstacles that had stalled conventional financing. I told him plainly that it wouldn't.
Investors in a tokenized offering ask the same questions as investors in any other offering. Who owns the asset? Is the structure sound? Who is running the business? What is the asset actually worth? If those answers are weak, a token doesn't help. Ownership records become more transparent and permanent, and regulators are watching this market closely.
The work that makes a company investable comes first: cleaning up the structure, securing clear title, getting board approval and engaging securities counsel. Tokenization is what you do after that work, not instead of it.
What it really costs depends on who you're selling to
The cost of creating a token says little about the cost of completing an offering. Minting can cost a few hundred dollars. A compliant raise is another matter, and the biggest variable isn't the technology. It's whether you already know your investors.
Consider the same $3 million raise under two strategies. The figures are illustrative, based on the deals we've worked on, and every deal differs:
| | Selling to investors you already have | Tokenizing to reach a new market |
|---|---|---|
| Legal, audit and structuring | $150,000 | $225,000 (new jurisdictions add legal work) |
| Broker or distribution fees | $90,000 (some raised directly) | $180,000 (6%) |
| Marketing and investor onboarding | $200,000 (about 7%) | $540,000 (about 18%) |
| Platform and technology | $30,000 | $30,000 |
| Total | $470,000, about 16% of the raise | $975,000, about a third of the raise |
Two things stand out. The technology is the smallest line in both columns. And marketing, the cost most often left out of the budget, is what separates them.
That's broadly in line with conventional small raises, which shows these are mostly the costs of raising capital, not a tokenization penalty. In the US, Reg A+ offerings are estimated to cost around 10% of the capital raised all-in, and Canadian brokered placements commonly pay a 6% cash commission before legal, audit and marketing. Our figures count cash costs only. In Canadian deals, brokers often also receive warrants, a further cost paid in dilution.
Larger raises spread the fixed legal and audit costs more thinly, but commissions and marketing tend to scale with the amount raised. Size helps, but it doesn't make the problem disappear.
Most companies underbudget marketing
In our experience, marketing is the line companies most often underestimate. They assume the platform will bring buyers, so they plan for the technology and the lawyers and stop there.
Specialists' guidance reflects the same pattern. Reg A+ advisers at CrowdCheck and Dalmore recommend budgeting from the high single digits to about 10% of a large offering for marketing. Smaller raises aimed at new or retail investors typically need a bigger share, because the cost of reaching people is spread over less money.
Selling a token to people who have never heard of you is a full capital-raising campaign: investor materials, outreach, events and follow-up, with every piece reviewed for compliance because securities rules limit who you can market to and what you can say. It doesn't end at launch, either. Holders need continuing disclosure and investor relations for as long as the token exists. A company that skips the broker to save the commission usually spends more on marketing instead. The cost moves; it doesn't disappear.
Tokenizing to reach investors you already have is a financing decision. Tokenizing to find investors you don't have is a marketing campaign, and it's priced like one.
What tokenization itself adds
Not all of that bill belongs to tokenization. Much of the work exists in conventional financing too. A fair budget separates three categories:
- Costs you'd incur either way: preparing the business for investment, documenting the offering and finding eligible investors.
- Costs tokenization adds or changes: platform implementation, smart-contract review, wallet arrangements, integration with ownership records and continuing technical support.
- Costs tokenization could reduce: particular reconciliation tasks, manual payment processing or other administration. Test those savings against what a conventional provider would charge.
If a tokenized structure adds $60,000 in net costs to a $3 million raise, that's two percentage points. If the only benefit is $10,000 a year in administrative savings, recovering it takes six years. Faster settlement, access to a specific investor group or repeated future issuance could change that. A claim that the token itself is inexpensive cannot.
Ask vendors to price the same scope, including continuing charges and exit arrangements. A percentage of capital raised, a fixed implementation fee and an annual servicing charge can produce very different economics over the investment's life.
Where the benefit becomes concrete
There are documented operational gains. In September 2024, Siemens issued a €300 million digital bond that settled automatically within minutes using a permissioned blockchain and the Bundesbank's payment solution. Siemens said its earlier €60 million digital bond had required two days to settle.
The comparison is instructive: both bonds were digital. The improvement depended on the surrounding settlement infrastructure, including how the money moved. Siemens demonstrated a specific benefit in completing the exchange of securities and cash. It did not show that tokenization reduced the bond's total issuance cost or interest rate.
For another issuer, the benefit might be automating recurring distributions or connecting to investors whose systems already support tokenized holdings. Those are propositions to measure. Which process changes? How much work disappears? Will the investors actually use it? An issuer with frequent transactions has more opportunity to recover implementation costs than one with a single offering and a small investor register.
A platform is not a distribution strategy
A token doesn't come with buyers. Before treating a tokenized offering as a financing plan, a company needs to answer three questions: who would want this investment, why would they buy it, and how will we reach them?
A platform may offer introductions or distribution services, but examine those separately from its technology. Which investors can it actually reach, in which jurisdictions, and what comparable offerings has it helped complete?
Lower investment minimums can widen participation, but they also increase the number of investors who need onboarding and ongoing service. International reach brings its own questions about eligibility, marketing rules and compliance. Investor access is a legal question before it is a technology one.
The companies that raise successfully through tokenization usually already have investors: an existing shareholder base, institutional relationships or a broker who can place the deal. The token makes the transaction more efficient. It doesn't create the demand.
Where will investors be able to sell?
Round-the-clock trading in major crypto assets creates another false expectation: that a newly issued token tied to a business will be just as easy to sell. But being able to transfer a token does not guarantee a market for it. Three things have to line up:
- The holder must be legally permitted to sell. In Canada, the Alberta Securities Commission explains that securities bought under prospectus exemptions typically carry four-month resale restrictions for reporting issuers, while restrictions for non-reporting issuers can continue indefinitely. A token does not remove those restrictions.
- A venue must support the trade. The new US exemption covers tokenized versions of exchange-listed stocks, not private company shares or royalties. In Europe, the regulator's own 2025 review found the DLT Pilot Regime had attracted only a handful of authorised venues and minimal live trading.
- A buyer must be eligible and willing. For a small, unfamiliar asset, that buyer may not exist.
Before describing an offering as liquid, an issuer should be able to name the permitted trading route, the eligible buyers and evidence of actual demand. Access to a marketplace is a chance to find a counterparty, not a promise of an exit.
For commodities, the claim matters
If any asset looks made for tokenization, it's a physical commodity, and gold is the proof. The tokenized gold market passed $5 billion in the first quarter of 2026, and the World Gold Council, the industry body for gold miners, is now pushing shared infrastructure to standardize how gold tokens are issued and redeemed.
But two issuers, Tether Gold and Paxos Gold, dominate that market. The concentration shows what success takes: trusted custody, regular audits, regulatory standing, deep liquidity and a brand investors already know. A commodity token also carries its own running costs: vaulting and insurance, independent attestations that the metal is really there, and redemption arrangements for holders who want the physical asset.
A token representing vaulted gold and a token financing future mine production are very different investments. The first depends on custody, verification and redemption. The second exposes investors to the producer's ability to deliver, where geology, financing, construction and operating performance all matter. It's usually treated as a security, not a commodity.
Royalties, streams and prepayments can provide contractual structures for production-related financing. They still require negotiation, diligence and jurisdiction-specific legal analysis. Avoiding an equity issue doesn't make the financing free: the producer still commits future revenue or deliveries, and tokenization doesn't remove those obligations.
The relevant question is whether the digital structure improves a defined part of that transaction, for example administering payments more efficiently for an identified investor group. That case has to stand on its own, separate from the demand for tokens backed by metal already in a vault.
Make the decision before choosing the platform
A company considering tokenization should be able to answer five questions:
- What legal right will investors receive, and how will token ownership connect to it?
- Who are the intended investors, and can the offering legally reach them?
- What does the tokenized route cost compared with a conventional structure over the same period, including marketing?
- What measurable improvement justifies any additional expense or complexity?
- What happens after issuance, including servicing, permitted transfers and a platform change or failure?
The strongest case combines an investable asset, identifiable demand and a process that genuinely benefits from the technology. Where those benefits remain speculative and the added costs are immediate, conventional financing deserves serious consideration.
The bottom line
Wall Street's investment in tokenization makes the option more credible, and costs will keep falling as the infrastructure matures. But it doesn't supply a ready market for every company that issues a token, and it doesn't move the hard parts of raising capital onto the blockchain.
So yes, you can tokenize almost any asset. Whether you should depends on a specific benefit, a credible financing plan and investors who want the underlying investment. Get those right, and the technology can make a good deal better. Skip them, and it becomes an expensive way to learn the same lessons.
This article provides general information, not legal, tax or investment advice. Regulatory references reflect sources checked in October 2026. The cost ranges reflect our own experience and will vary by deal; the $3 million example is hypothetical.