Tokenisation is often described as the next step in the digitisation of finance, but that type of framing understates what is actually happening. As the International Monetary Fund argues, this is not simply a technological upgrade but a structural shift in how trust, settlement and risk are organised across the financial system. For decades, finance has relied on layered institutions, sequential processing and time delays that, whilst inefficient, provided stability. Tokenisation removes many of these frictions by embedding assets, payments and contractual logic directly into programmable systems. The result is a financial architecture that is faster, more integrated and potentially more fragile. And the appeal is clear. In traditional markets, transactions move through a chain of intermediaries, each performing verification, reconciliation and settlement. Tokenisation compresses these steps into a single synchronised process. Settlement can occur in real time, ownership records become transparent and compliance can be embedded directly into the transaction itself. The IMF highlights that this shift enables what it calls atomic settlement, where cash and assets move simultaneously, so reducing counterparty risk and operational complexity. For businesses, this translates into lower costs, faster access to liquidity and more efficient use of capital.
IMF Tokenisation report
Source: X
Moreover, it is already moving beyond theory. JPMorgan’s Onyx platform has demonstrated how tokenised collateral can be mobilised in real time across intraday markets whereby improving liquidity efficiency and reducing friction in repo transactions. Meanwhile, BlackRock has launched a tokenised money market fund that allows investors to access fund shares on-chain, combining traditional asset management with programmable infrastructure. And, at the level of sovereign infrastructure, Project mBridge (a collaboration between multiple central banks) is testing how tokenised central bank money can transform cross border payments by reducing reliance on correspondent banking networks. Even exchanges are embracing tokenisation: Nasdaq is partnering with Kraken’s parent company to develop tokenised equities, aiming to enable programmable investor engagement and 24/7 trading of tokenised shares whilst maintaining governance rights and regulatory compliance. These initiatives reflect a broader shift toward integrating traditional markets with on-chain infrastructure, potentially expanding global access and modernising settlement systems. They also illustrate an important point - tokenisation is not eliminating intermediaries so much as redefining their role. Banks, asset managers and financial market infrastructures are not disappearing. They are repositioning themselves as operators of the new rails. The commercial opportunity lies not only in issuing tokenised assets but in controlling the infrastructure through which those assets move.
From a business perspective, the monetisation pathways are already emerging. Firms that can issue tokenised assets gain access to broader and more fragmented pools of capital, including retail and global investors which were previously excluded. Those that build infrastructure layers, such as custody, compliance systems or tokenisation platforms, can capture recurring revenue through software and transaction fees. Liquidity providers are also likely to benefit as markets move toward continuous trading where capital must be deployed and managed in real time rather than at discrete intervals. At the same time, the data generated by tokenised systems opens new opportunities in analytics, risk management and regulatory reporting. However, the IMF’s analysis is careful to balance these opportunities with a clear articulation of the risks. The very features that make tokenisation efficient also introduce new forms of fragility. Speed is one of the most significant; in traditional systems, settlement delays create buffers that allow institutions to manage liquidity, net exposures and intervene during periods of stress. Tokenised systems remove these buffers; settlement becomes continuous, and liquidity demands arise instantly. The IMF warns that this can cause stress events to unfold more rapidly, leaving less time for intervention and increasing the risk of pro-cyclical behaviour.
Another concern is fragmentation. The future is unlikely to be dominated by a single unified system. Instead, multiple tokenised platforms are likely to co-exist, each with its own standards, governance structures and settlement assets. Without co-ordination, liquidity could become fragmented across these platforms, reducing efficiency and increasing systemic risk. Cross platform connections, often implemented through bridges, introduce additional vulnerabilities, particularly if they rely on weak governance or complex trust assumptions. Perhaps the most profound shift identified by the IMF is the relocation of risk from institutions to infrastructure. In traditional finance, risk is managed through balance sheets, regulation and human judgment. In tokenised systems, risk is embedded in code. Smart contracts execute automatically, data feeds trigger actions in real time and governance mechanisms are often predefined. This creates a new category of risk; a coding error, faulty data input or poorly designed algorithm can propagate instantly across the system, with limited opportunity for human intervention. The macro-economic implications are equally significant; tokenisation enables capital to move across borders at unprecedented speed. For advanced economies, this may improve efficiency; for emerging markets, it raises the risk of rapid capital outflows, currency substitution and erosion of monetary sovereignty. The World Bank has highlighted its concerns regarding US dollarisation: “High dollarization is shown to increase the risk of depreciation and even suspension, as indicated by interest rate spreads. While specific policy is needed to deal with the risks associated with dollarization, the underlying causes of unwanted dollarization should also be tackled.” The IMF concurs that privately issued stablecoins, particularly those denominated in major currencies, could gain traction in economies with weaker domestic currencies whereby amplifying financial instability during periods of stress.
Against this backdrop, the question of who wins and who loses becomes critical. Firms that control infrastructure are likely to capture the greatest share of value. This includes banks that successfully transition into platform operators, technology firms that provide tokenisation and compliance solutions and exchanges that adapt to tokenised trading environments. Asset managers that embrace tokenisation early may benefit from expanded distribution and reduced operational costs. Central banks and regulators that establish clear frameworks can preserve stability while enabling innovation. On the other hand, traditional intermediaries that rely on legacy processes and fee structures are at risk. Correspondent banking networks, post trade service providers and firms dependent on settlement delays for revenue may see their business models eroded. Jurisdictions that fail to adapt regulatory frameworks risk losing liquidity and market relevance to more forward leaning environments. Emerging markets, in particular, face the challenge of balancing innovation with the need to maintain monetary control. Mapping the competitive landscape highlights where value is likely to concentrate this. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and other large banks are investing heavily in tokenised infrastructure; asset managers such as BlackRock and Franklin Templeton are experimenting with tokenised funds and securities. Technology providers including ConsenSys, R3, and Fireblocks are building the underlying platforms and custody solutions and payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard are exploring how tokenised money integrates with existing systems. As Chainalysis recently wrote: “Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge and Mastercard’s partnership with BVNK represent strategic bets on where payments are headed.”
Meanwhile, decentralised protocols continue to innovate at the edge, often moving faster but with less regulatory certainty. Certainly, the outcome is not predetermined. The IMF outlines several possible scenarios, ranging from a co-ordinated system anchored in public trust to a fragmented landscape of competing platforms, or even a system dominated by private money. Each scenario carries different implications for stability, efficiency and control. What is clear is that policy decisions will play a decisive role in shaping the future. Tokenisation is a technological enabler but the structure of the financial system will ultimately depend on governance, regulation and international coordination. For businesses and investors, the key is to recognise that tokenisation is not a niche development. It is a shift in the underlying architecture of finance. The opportunities are significant, but so are the risks. The firms that succeed will be those that understand both and position themselves accordingly.
This article first appeared in Digital Bytes (14th of April, 2026), a weekly newsletter by Jonny Fry of Team Blockchain.