The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the application of existing federal securities laws to crypto assets. Most importantly, it reaffirms that the application of federal securities laws to tokenized securities depends not on the use of blockchains or crypto assets, but on the economic and legal substance of the rights conferred.
Categories of Tokenized Securities
As detailed by the SEC, a tokenized security is a financial instrument enumerated in the definition of “security” under the federal securities laws that is formatted as, or represented by, a crypto asset, with ownership records maintained on a crypto network, such as a blockchain or similar distributed ledger technology (DLT). While there are a variety of models used to tokenize securities, and they vary in terms of structure and the rights afforded to holders, tokenized securities generally fall into two categories:
Securities tokenized by or on behalf of the issuers of such securities; and
Securities tokenized by third parties unaffiliated with the issuers of such securities.
Issuer-Sponsored Tokenized Securities
In issuer-sponsored models, the issuer itself (or an affiliated party) tokenizes its securities. These structures may include:
On-chain systems where the blockchain serves as the official record of ownership; or
Hybrid systems where tokens interact with a traditional, off-chain master securityholder file.
These tokens represent the security itself. Accordingly, issuers must comply with applicable Securities Act and Exchange Act requirements, including registration (or exemption), disclosure, reporting, and transfer agent obligations.
Third-party Sponsored Tokenized Securities
In third-party models, an unaffiliated entity tokenizes an existing security or provides tokenized exposure to it. Common structures include:
Custodial models: A third party issues a crypto asset representing an entitlement to an underlying security that the third party holds in custody. The crypto asset evidences the holder’s indirect interest in the underlying security. Transfers are recorded on the third party’s recordkeeping systems, which may be on-chain or off-chain; and
Synthetic or derivative models: A third party issues a crypto asset that provides synthetic exposure to a referenced security, but does not confer rights in the underlying security. These may take the form of linked securities or security-based swaps that are formatted as crypto assets.
Depending on the structure and rights conveyed, these tokens may be treated as securities, security-based swaps, or other regulated financial instruments. Additional regulatory regimes may apply to custodians, broker-dealers, or swap counterparties involved in these arrangements.
Regulatory Implications
The SEC’s latest guidance reinforces that market participants involved in the issuance, trading, custody, or settlement of tokenized securities must assess whether they are required to register or comply with applicable regulatory regimes, including those governing broker-dealers, exchanges, clearing agencies, transfer agents, and investment advisers. Additionally, investor protection provisions—including registration requirements and anti-fraud rules—apply to tokenized securities transactions fully.
By reiterating that tokenized securities fall squarely within existing investor protection frameworks, the SEC underscores that:
Registration and full disclosure are generally required unless a specific exemption applies.
Anti-fraud provisions (e.g., Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933) continue to apply; and
Market intermediaries, including broker-dealers, clearing agencies, custodians, and exchanges, must maintain compliance with relevant regulations regardless of whether ownership is recorded on-chain or off-chain.
How We Can Help
The SEC guidance reaffirms the agency’s consistent regulatory stance that tokenization does not alter the application of federal securities laws. While blockchain technology may offer operational efficiencies, market participants must structure tokenized securities offerings within existing legal and regulatory frameworks. Accordingly, clients exploring tokenization initiatives should engage legal counsel early to evaluate regulatory implications, operational design, and compliance strategies.
Scarinci Hollenbeck represents issuers, intermediaries, in-house counsel, and market participants navigating this emerging area. Our experienced securities attorneys provide comprehensive guidance that allows our clients to capitalize on new opportunities while limiting legal risks.
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?
Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore
Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers
Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal
circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
