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.
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
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!
