The Situation:

The SEC staff has now explicitly tightened the taxonomy around “tokenized securities,” clarifying that the market needs to stop using tokenization language to blur three distinct objects: (1) the security itself represented in token form, (2) a technology layer for recordkeeping/transfer, and (3) a separate security issued by a third party that merely references another security’s economics. The practical upgrade vs. what we covered on Feb 5: the staff is pushing participants to name the legal claim precisely—and then match the full compliance stack (issuer/transfer agent, BD, ATS/exchange, clearing) to that claim, rather than treating “on-chain” as a carve-out. This arrives as wallets and offshore distributors accelerate “stock token” distribution (Ondo/Blockchain.com, MetaMask), increasing the odds that taxonomy slippage becomes an enforcement and gatekeeping issue, not a documentation footnote. Net: the SEC is drawing a cleaner perimeter around what counts as an issuer-recognized security vs. a linked security / security-based swap formatted as a crypto asset. Cleary Gottlieb / Elliptic / PYMNTS

The Mechanism:

• Regulatory trigger = classification before distribution: the SEC’s message is operational: you can’t design custody, venues, and investor access until you’ve pinned down whether the token is the security (issuer-recognized) or a new security (linked/SBS) created by someone else. Cleary Gottlieb
• DLT-integrated recordkeeping is the “golden path” for primary issuance: if on-chain transfer automatically updates the issuer’s master securityholder file (often via the issuer/transfer agent), the token is best understood as a conventional security with upgraded transfer rails—less legal ambiguity, more operational work.
• “Wrapper” tokens concentrate risk in the intermediary layer: where the issuer’s books do not update from on-chain movement, the system reintroduces reconciliation, beneficial-owner mapping, and enforceability risk—i.e., the token is closer to a receipt/claim on an intermediary than the security itself.
• Third-party tokenization is treated as issuance of a linked security: the SEC points directly to structures that look like security-based swaps (or other linked securities) “formatted as a crypto asset,” which drags in gating constraints (notably ECP eligibility in SBS contexts) and venue requirements. Cleary Gottlieb
• Market-structure implication: wallets become de facto distribution venues: if tokenized exposure is distributed inside self-custody wallets, the compliance question shifts from “what chain?” to “who is the issuer, who is the BD, and where is the ATS/exchange execution?”—a plumbing problem, not a UX problem.
• Second-order effect: incumbents’ advantage is governance + recordkeeping control: banks/exchanges/CSD-adjacent players can credibly offer issuer-aligned architectures (transfer agent, qualified custody, regulated venues). Crypto-native distributors are pushed toward either (a) institutional-only linked products or (b) partnering into the regulated stack.

The State of Play:

Market Position: The SEC’s taxonomy pressures “stock token” models to converge toward either issuer-sponsored issuance (harder, slower, but scalable into U.S. institutions) or clearly-labeled linked securities (faster to launch, but more constrained in who can buy and how they can trade). That’s a relative win for exchange groups and regulated infrastructure operators exploring tokenized equities within existing perimeters—exactly the direction we flagged last week as tokenized equities distribution expanded beyond the U.S. The likely near-term loser is the ambiguous middle: third-party “tokenized stocks” marketed as functional equivalents to equities while avoiding the securities venue stack.

Regulatory Landscape: The posture is not anti-tokenization; it’s anti-category error. The staff is effectively telling the market that tokenization is a rails upgrade and that securities laws attach to the rights and obligations, not the data structure. The practical shift is that enforcement and examinations can now key off a cleaner decision tree: issuer-recognized on-chain recordkeeping vs. intermediary wrapper vs. linked/SBS-like exposure—reducing the room for “we’re just a token” arguments as distribution expands through wallets and non-broker channels. Elliptic

Key Data:

• Securitize tokenized AUM: $4B+ (as of Nov 2025), a proxy for where issuer-aligned/regulated tokenization is already scaling. Business Wire
• Ondo Global Markets footprint (reported): $556M TVL and $8.7B volume, highlighting how quickly wallet distribution can scale—even before U.S.-style market structure is in place. Chainwire
• WisdomTree tokenized fund count: 15 tokenized funds since its first digital fund launch in 2023, indicating asset-manager-led issuance is moving from pilot to product line. CoinDesk
• Tokenized equity distribution expansion: 200+ tokenized U.S. stocks/ETFs targeted across ~30 EEA countries via Blockchain.com’s DeFi Wallet—exactly the distribution pattern that forces taxonomy discipline. TradingView

What's Next:

Over the next 1–2 weeks, watch for (i) distributors to publish product-level legal characterization (issuer-recognized security vs. linked/SBS-like instrument), including explicit disclosure on whether tokens convey dividends/votes and how ownership is recorded; and (ii) any follow-on signals from regulated venues (exchange/ATS applicants, transfer agents, qualified custodians) that they are aligning their filings and controls to the SEC’s decision tree. The catalyst is not another speech—it’s whether tokenized equity platforms change their distribution gating and venue strategy in response to the taxonomy, because that’s where the SEC just narrowed the maneuvering room.

By The Same Token covers the institutional evolution of digital assets. For questions or tips: reply to this email.

🌐 Visit whatsthelatest.ai for the latest Digital Assets coverage and more.

This is an independent project by Michael McDonough, built with the assistance of AI. Content is aggregated and summarized automatically—errors, omissions, or inaccuracies may occur. This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.