The tokenization debate is shifting. For years, much of the focus was on whether real-world assets could be put on a blockchain. Now, the harder question is what happens after issuance. Edwin Mata, CEO and co-founder of Brickken, says institutions will not adopt tokenized assets at scale unless settlement, ownership rights, and collateral use hold up under stress.
Regulators focus on post-issuance risks
Mata’s comments come as regulators look beyond issuance. The European Securities and Markets Authority is consulting on whether tokenized assets can qualify as collateral in the region’s clearing infrastructure. Singapore’s central bank is also developing digital settlement initiatives. Both efforts suggest supervisors want to know if blockchain-based assets can work inside existing financial plumbing, not just alongside it.
According to remarks shared with Crypto Briefing, Mata said the latest phase of tokenization is more demanding for financial infrastructure. Regulators are asking whether tokenized assets can function as collateral, settle reliably, and keep their legal protections when markets come under pressure. That is a different test from proving that an asset can be minted on-chain.
Ownership records and settlement finality
Institutions need confidence in ownership records. They also need settlement finality, meaning a transaction is legally complete and cannot be unwound later. If those pieces are weak, tokenized assets may struggle to move from pilot projects to daily use.
Mata said issuers must ensure tokens can move across platforms and financial systems without losing legal protections or cutting off liquidity. I think that point is often overlooked. A token that cannot be transferred easily, or whose ownership is unclear during a dispute, is not much use to a bank or fund.
He also expects financial institutions to pick settlement arrangements based on the asset, transaction size, and liquidity needs. For issuers, supporting different payment methods while keeping ownership records accurate will matter as tokenized securities enter more markets. That is not a simple back-office task. It touches legal, operational, and compliance teams.
Liquidity risks and operational resilience
The International Monetary Fund has separately studied how tokenization and connected digital infrastructure could affect financial stability. Mata pointed to a possible risk: automated transactions could trigger simultaneous collateral movements across institutions if asset valuations change quickly. That could create new liquidity pressures. Whether those risks are large or manageable may depend on design and safeguards.
Custodians, settlement providers, and other operators will also be tested when transactions fail or systems go down. Operational resilience matters. Mata said institutional adoption depends on whether tokenized assets can be managed across their lifecycle with enforceable ownership, reliable settlement, sufficient liquidity, and resilient operations.
Over the next year, he expects adoption to hinge on how well tokenized assets can be held, transferred, and settled across different financial systems. The technology may be ready. The market infrastructure, perhaps, is still catching up.
