Tokenisation Is Moving From Experiment to Market Infrastructure: What Comes Next

Tokenisation is no longer simply a blockchain proposition. It is being evaluated as a redesign of how financial assets are issued, transferred, settled and recorded.

The premise is straightforward at scale: represent an asset or financial claim through a digital token on distributed ledger infrastructure. The implications are much broader. Tokenised securities could enable faster settlement, fractional ownership, programmable transactions and more efficient movement of assets across markets.

The important shift is that institutions are now testing the infrastructure rather than debating the concept.

In traditional markets, ownership and settlement often depend on multiple intermediaries, operating windows and reconciliation processes. Tokenisation can bring parts of this financial "plumbing" onto shared digital infrastructure, allowing transactions and ownership records to be updated with greater speed and automation.

That does not mean every tokenised asset will trade 24/7 or eliminate intermediaries. The outcome will depend on the legal structure, custody model and regulatory framework.

This distinction matters because a token is not automatically equivalent to ownership of the underlying asset.

One of the most important questions for investors is not whether an asset is tokenised, but what the token legally represents.

A token may confer direct ownership, economic exposure, a beneficial interest, or merely a contractual claim against an intermediary. Voting rights, dividends, redemption rights, custody and insolvency protection can therefore differ substantially between products.

As the global market develops, regulatory clarity around these rights will ultimately be as important as the underlying technology.

The transition is visible in market infrastructure. Major exchanges, financial institutions and post-trade organisations are exploring tokenised securities, blockchain-based settlement and digital asset rails. The direction suggests tokenisation may evolve as another layer within established financial-market infrastructure.

In India, the conversation is particularly relevant. SEBI has been examining tokenisation within its broader technology roadmap for market infrastructure institutions, while policy discussions are increasingly focused on controlled experimentation, digital securities and real-world assets.

The Securities Markets Code debate has also reinforced a technology-neutral approach to securities, signalling that changing the form of an asset does not necessarily change its regulatory character.

Technology alone will not determine whether tokenisation reaches scale. The decisive questions are institutional: Who owns the underlying asset? Who holds it? Which law governs the claim? How are transactions settled? What happens when a platform fails? How are AML/KYC, disclosure and investor-protection obligations enforced?

These are not peripheral issues. They are the foundations of market confidence.

For India, the opportunity is therefore larger than creating tokenised versions of existing assets. The more consequential task is to build trusted infrastructure around them globally — combining legal certainty, interoperable technology, regulated experimentation and institutional participation.

Tokenisation may eventually make markets faster and more accessible. But its lasting value will not come from putting assets on a blockchain. It will come from making ownership, settlement and access more transparent, efficient and trustworthy.