Tokenised securities are becoming more real. Where does that create real economic value — and where could it become new business?
Updated October 2026
Europe has moved beyond conceptual discussion of tokenised securities. Wholesale settlement in central bank money is operational, regulated DLT market infrastructures exist, and digital securities can be issued, registered and serviced under established legal frameworks.
This Theme is about the use of distributed-ledger technology for securities — such as bonds, funds or equities — and the capital-markets infrastructure around them. It is not about cryptoassets as an investment category or crypto trading. The distinction is about the financial instrument and the market, not necessarily the underlying technology.
But working infrastructure does not by itself create investor demand, lower funding costs, improve distribution or build a sustainable new business. The more important question is where in the value chain tokenisation actually solves a problem better than modern conventional infrastructure.
For some real-world-asset use cases, an important constraint appears before tokenisation begins. Asset identity, ownership, legal rights, valuations, servicing information and cash-flow data need to be complete, current and verifiable — and in some cases the harder problem is not creating the token but building and maintaining the data foundation underneath it.
A token can change representation and transaction mechanics. It does not make weak underlying data reliable.
"Tokenisation" can describe very different things: a security issued natively on DLT, a token representing an off-chain asset or right, a familiar instrument whose issuance and lifecycle move onto new rails, or market infrastructure that uses DLT without changing the underlying investment proposition.
These structures can look similar in market language while relying on very different legal and operational foundations — and very different economics.
This is where the evidence is becoming concrete. DLT and smart contracts can automate parts of issuance, registration, settlement, coupon processing and redemption, and wholesale transactions can now settle in central bank money. That can create real operational efficiency even where the economic exposure remains entirely conventional.
Usable infrastructure, however, is a prerequisite for a market — not evidence that one will develop.
A technically transferable asset is not necessarily a liquid one. A successfully issued digital security still needs investors, distribution and an economic reason to exist — and where conventional infrastructure already provides efficient digital issuance, custody and settlement, tokenisation has to demonstrate an incremental advantage, not technical novelty.
The more interesting commercial questions begin where tokenisation changes who can access an instrument, how it is distributed or which intermediaries are required. The evidence there remains much thinner.
The clearest signals today sit in infrastructure and issuance — the layers before demand.
Pontes went live in September 2026, enabling wholesale tokenised-asset transactions to settle in central bank money through Eurosystem infrastructure. The ECB is also preparing to invest a small part of its own funds in tokenised euro-area public-sector and supranational securities, with settlement through Pontes.
A 2026 bond issued as a crypto security under Germany’s eWpG showed how large parts of a familiar bond lifecycle can be digitally orchestrated. The significance lies in process architecture and execution speed — not in a new asset class or better funding economics.
CEE is not simply waiting for tokenised-securities infrastructure to arrive from elsewhere. Regulated DLT securities infrastructure is already operating in the region, while CEE-founded technology companies are participating in enabling layers used in international tokenised-asset markets. The scale remains modest and uneven — but the region is part of the infrastructure story, not just a potential end market.
The important distinction is not simply whether tokenisation is becoming possible. It is what problem it solves, for whom, and compared with what.
The European infrastructure layer is materially more credible than it was even two years ago. But the strongest evidence still sits in infrastructure, issuance, lifecycle automation and specialised wholesale use cases — not in broad investor demand or proven new revenue pools.
What is actually being tokenised matters; for some real-world assets the more fundamental challenge may sit upstream, in the data foundation. And even where issuance works, the question continues downstream: who wants the instrument, how it reaches investors, whether meaningful liquidity develops, whether the economics improve.
The token may therefore be only one layer in the system — and not necessarily the layer where the commercial problem sits.
The same technology may solve very different problems in different CEE markets. Retail demand is not currently obvious, while established institutional funding channels set a high benchmark for alternative issuance models. But that is only part of the question.
The more interesting CEE opportunities may emerge across issuers, market infrastructure and enabling services: where banks, corporates or public-sector issuers can use new issuance or lifecycle models; where regulated infrastructure changes access or distribution; and where new capabilities are needed around data, settlement, custody or servicing. Which of these can create meaningful economic value — rather than simply demonstrate that tokenisation is possible — remains an open question.
Broad investor demand. Durable secondary-market liquidity. Systematic funding-cost advantages. Repeatable intermediary economics. And, for many real-world-asset structures, whether the underlying data and legal architecture can support the instrument at all.
Legal and technical feasibility should not be mistaken for a business.
What is actually being tokenised — the security or right itself, a representation of an off-chain asset, or primarily the way it is issued and serviced?
Where does tokenisation solve an economic, operational or access problem that modern conventional infrastructure does not solve well enough?
For real-world assets, when is the underlying data foundation a more important constraint than the tokenisation technology itself?
Where, if anywhere, could tokenised issuance, settlement, distribution or enabling infrastructure create meaningful new business in CEE?
We exchange perspectives with financial institutions, issuers, investors, infrastructure providers and technology companies working on digital securities and related market infrastructure.
If you are seeing evidence of where tokenisation creates a meaningful advantage — or where the reality falls short of the narrative — we would be interested in comparing notes.