.svg){kind=small}
Tokenizing shares: the issuer decides
A credible tokenized share starts with the issuer and goes through regulated infrastructure.
Key points
- In the US, the first third-party tokenized stock venue (OKX x ICE) has met objections from nine issuers, and Nasdaq is opting its own shares out.
- The core problem: the tokenizer earns the fees, the issuer carries the risk (price divergence, fragmented liquidity, confused shareholders) without raising any capital.
- Our view: only the company can decide to tokenize its securities, issuance must go through regulated infrastructure, and wrapped versions that circulate afterwards only derive their value from the original security.
Nine major US companies, including Verizon, Broadcom and UnitedHealth, have just refused to have their shares tokenized without them. Their objection confirms what the Swiss framework has provided since 2021: a credible tokenized share starts with the issuer and goes through regulated infrastructure.
What happened
Since the SEC's innovation exemption announced on 17 September 2026, venues can offer US stocks tokenized by a third party, provided the issuer is notified and given 30 days to object. The first real test, OKXICE (a joint venture between OKX and NYSE owner ICE), drew objections from nine companies: Cerebras, AppLovin, Applied Digital, Rocket Lab, CoreWeave, Verizon, Applied Optoelectronics, Broadcom and UnitedHealth (public notice dated 15 October). Nasdaq said it would also opt out its own shares, citing the lack of real-time best prices and consolidated tape reporting.
Applied Optoelectronics explained its objection: uncertainty about price, liquidity and volatility, the risk of investors being confused about an offering the company neither sponsored nor endorsed, and no clear benefit to the company or its shareholders.
Our view
- Only the issuer can decide to tokenize its securities. A tokenized share is only worth something if the rights it represents (dividends, votes, information) are guaranteed by the company itself. Tokenization imposed from outside creates a second market the issuer does not control and that brings it no capital. The US objections are not a rejection of tokenization: they are companies reminding the market that it belongs to them.
- Issuance must go through regulated infrastructure. A legal framework alone is not enough. In Switzerland, the DLT Act (2021) allows ledger-based securities to be issued, but the full chain matters as much as the law: a regulated trading venue, an approved settlement rail such as SeturionX, the FINMA-authorized DLT trading system within Boerse Stuttgart Group, and a sound technical architecture. That is what keeps the tokenized security the same security, with the same rights.
- Wrapped versions come later, and depend on the original. Once a security has been issued and distributed by a regulated actor, third parties can create versions that circulate on other networks, which is good for liquidity. But their value always derives from the original security: without a proper issuance at the start, there is nothing solid to wrap.
This is the model we follow at SwissChain Holding: tokenized participation certificates issued at the company's initiative, under the Swiss DLT Act.
FAQ
Can a company prevent its shares from being tokenized?
In the US, the SEC exemption gives the issuer 30 days to object to third-party tokenization on this type of venue. In Switzerland, issuing ledger-based securities under the DLT Act is an act of the issuer.
What is a wrapped version of a security?
A token created by a third party that represents an existing security held in reserve. It can make circulation easier, but it does not replace the original security and depends entirely on it.
Why does infrastructure matter as much as the law?
Because the law defines what is possible, but it is the regulated venue, the settlement rail and the technical architecture that concretely guarantee the token carries the same rights as the share.
