For years, we've heard about how tokenisation could make buying, selling and transferring financial assets faster and easier. But turning something like a share or bond into a digital token is one thing. Making that token work with the banks, brokers and financial systems we already rely on is a different challenge.
And that's where things are starting to change. On 28 October 2026, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) launched a service that connects traditional securities with blockchain technology. Just two weeks later, it announced plans to connect that service to Solana, a public blockchain network.
It's an interesting development because we're no longer just talking about creating new blockchain-based financial systems. Established financial institutions are starting to bring the technology into the systems they already use. But there's a lot more involved than simply putting financial assets on a blockchain.
How DTCC Is Bringing Tokenisation Into Traditional Finance
DTCC is one of the organisations that helps keep the US financial system running. Through its subsidiaries, it handles a lot of the work that happens after someone buys or sells securities, such as shares and bonds. That includes helping settle trades and keeping track of assets held on behalf of financial institutions.
To give you an idea of its size, DTCC's depository subsidiary held and serviced securities worth $114 trillion in 2025. So when an organisation like DTCC starts using blockchain technology, we're talking about changes to systems that already handle enormous amounts of financial activity.
According to its October Tokenization Service announcement, the service lets eligible securities held at the Depository Trust Company (DTC) be represented as digital tokens. Those tokens can then be transferred through supported blockchain networks while remaining connected to the securities held within DTC's existing system.
The service launched with connections to the Canton Network and DTCC's private Besu network. On 12 November, DTCC also announced plans to connect it to Solana, with that integration expected in the second half of 2027. So the service itself is already running, but the Solana connection isn't available yet.
This is also quite different from buying and selling cryptocurrency. The tokens aren't simply cryptocurrencies being traded for their market value. They represent rights linked to traditional financial assets that are already held within a regulated securities system.
Eligible participants can turn those securities entitlements into tokens, transfer them between approved digital wallets and convert them back through the service. In other words, DTCC is changing how those financial assets can be represented and moved without removing the systems responsible for holding and managing them.
What Changes When Traditional Financial Assets Are Tokenised?
At its simplest, financial asset tokenisation means creating a digital token that represents an asset or a right to that asset. In traditional finance, that could mean a token representing someone's entitlement to shares or bonds. But there's an important difference between moving a digital token and transferring the financial rights that come with the asset it represents.
Ownership and custody don't disappear
When you buy shares through a broker, those shares don't necessarily sit in an account registered directly in your name. Several organisations may be involved in holding them, keeping records of who owns what and making sure transactions are handled correctly. Tokenisation doesn't automatically change those arrangements.
With DTCC's service, the underlying securities remain within DTC's existing custody system. The tokens represent entitlements linked to those securities. Creating a token doesn't mean a completely new share has suddenly been created.
The SEC's December 2025 no-action letter explains how eligible DTC participants can move tokenised entitlements between registered wallets while DTC keeps the corresponding records. So even though the token moves on a blockchain, the financial rights behind it still need to be recognised and recorded correctly.
And there's more to owning a security than being able to transfer it. Shares may pay dividends, bonds may pay interest, and companies can make changes that affect the securities people hold. Someone still needs to manage all of that. Exactly how ownership works depends on the rules behind each tokenisation arrangement.
Financial institutions need to know what rights the token gives its holder, who's responsible for those rights and what happens if there's a problem.
Financial records must remain consistent
Banks, brokers and other financial institutions already use different systems to keep track of assets and transactions. Those records need to agree so everyone knows what has been bought, sold, transferred or held. Adding a blockchain means there's another system recording what happens to an asset.
That could make some information easier to share and reduce the amount of checking organisations have to do. But it only works properly if the records stay consistent. For example, imagine a security held in a traditional depository is turned into a token. The institution needs to record that change and make sure the original security isn't still being treated as separately available for transfer.
Then, when someone transfers the token or converts it back, the records need to reflect those changes too. If the blockchain says one thing and the depository's records say another, there needs to be a clear way to work out which record is correct and fix the problem.
The International Monetary Fund's October 2026 research on tokenisation identifies reliable records and clear legal rules as important requirements for tokenised financial markets. It also warns that blockchain technology can introduce new risks, even as it solves some existing problems.
So financial institutions can't simply assume that a blockchain's transaction history is enough. They still need rules for keeping records accurate, deciding which records count legally and correcting mistakes.
Why Settlement and Interoperability Remain Difficult
Moving a token from one blockchain wallet to another might be fairly simple. But completing the financial transaction behind that transfer is a different story. When someone buys a security, the seller needs to deliver it and the buyer needs to pay for it.
Both sides need to know that the transaction has been completed properly and that neither party is left waiting for something they're owed.
A confirmed blockchain transaction isn't always final settlement
Blockchain networks have their own ways of confirming that a transaction has taken place. But just because a network confirms a transfer doesn't necessarily mean the transaction is legally complete. This is where settlement finality comes in. It's the point when a transfer or payment is considered final under the rules that apply to the transaction.
Financial institutions need to know exactly when that happens. Otherwise, there could be uncertainty about who owns an asset, whether a payment has been completed or whether a transaction can still be reversed. There's also the problem of getting the money to move alongside the asset. A tokenised security might be available to transfer at any time of day.
But if the buyer can't make the payment until the banking system opens, the transaction still can't be fully completed. One way of dealing with this is something called delivery versus payment. The idea is fairly simple. The buyer receives the asset when the seller receives the money, so neither side has to complete their part without the other.
Blockchain technology can help coordinate this through what's known as atomic settlement. That means the connected parts of a transaction either happen together or don't happen at all. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has been testing how this could work through Project Agorá.
The project looks at how digital versions of commercial bank deposits and central bank money could support payments between financial institutions across different countries. It's still experimental, rather than a replacement for existing payment systems.
Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority announced in November 2026 that its Project EnsembleTX pilot had advanced to support interbank settlement of tokenised deposits around the clock, using tokenised central bank money. The pilot involves 12 banks and 20 industry participants. Both projects are looking at the same basic problem.
If financial assets can move through blockchain networks, the money used to pay for them needs to be able to move too.
Connecting blockchains doesn't guarantee interoperability
Not every financial institution uses the same technology, and the same is true of blockchain networks. Some networks are public, while others only allow approved organisations to participate. They can also have different rules for recording transactions, checking identities, managing access and protecting information.
This makes blockchain interoperability, or getting different networks to work together, more complicated than it might first appear. Two networks might be able to exchange information without being able to handle the same financial assets in the same way. For example, if a tokenised security moves from one network to another, the receiving system needs to recognise what the token represents.
The transfer also needs to preserve the holder's rights and meet any rules that apply to the transaction. The BIS's 2026 Annual Economic Report identifies the separation between different blockchain networks as one of the challenges facing tokenised financial markets.
Connecting them can also introduce new risks, particularly when extra technology is needed to move information or assets between networks. Regulators are starting to look more closely at how these problems can be addressed. In November 2026, European authorities called for industry participation in the European Tokenisation Standards Group.
The group is intended to help develop common standards so tokenised financial systems can work together more easily. For financial institutions, the goal isn't simply to connect different blockchain networks. It's to make sure transactions can move between them without creating confusion about ownership, payments or who's responsible for what.
What Financial Institutions Need Before Tokenisation Can Scale
Banks and other financial institutions already have complicated systems for handling securities, payments, customer accounts and regulatory requirements. Introducing tokenised assets means finding ways to make the new technology work with those systems.
And while blockchain could eventually make some processes simpler, getting there isn't necessarily straightforward. Traditional and tokenised systems may need to work alongside each other for some time.
The existing infrastructure still matters
A bank can't start using tokenised securities and simply forget about the systems it already relies on. Its existing technology still needs to recognise when an asset has been tokenised, where that asset is held, when it changes hands and what happens when it's converted back into its traditional form. The same applies to the processes behind those systems.
Financial institutions still need to check who's allowed to access accounts and services, approve transactions and monitor activity for anything suspicious. They also need accurate records for reporting, audits and regulatory checks. Then there's the question of what happens when something goes wrong.
If a blockchain network becomes unavailable, a transfer fails or someone loses access to a wallet, institutions need a way to deal with the problem. They can't leave customers or other financial institutions wondering where their assets are or whether a transaction has gone through. Public blockchain networks introduce another challenge because banks may be relying on technology they don't directly control.
The European Securities and Markets Authority's DLT Pilot Regime gives us an example of how regulators are approaching these changes. It allows certain financial institutions to test blockchain-based trading and settlement arrangements while keeping rules designed to protect investors and maintain financial stability.
For the technology teams responsible for bringing these systems together, the challenge is working out which parts of the existing infrastructure need to change, which can stay as they are and how everything will communicate. They also need to plan for situations where things don't work as expected.
Because a system that handles financial assets needs to be reliable when something fails, not just when everything goes according to plan.
Institutions need clear answers before expanding
Getting a tokenisation pilot to work is a good starting point. But proving that a few transactions can be completed successfully isn't the same as showing that the technology is ready to handle large numbers of assets, customers and financial institutions.
As organisations start expanding their use of tokenisation, there are several questions they need to answer:
- Ownership: What does someone actually own when they hold the token, and who's responsible for protecting those rights?
- Records: Which system has the official record of an asset, and what happens when different systems disagree?
- Settlement: When is a transaction legally complete, and how does the buyer's payment reach the seller?
- Interoperability: Can assets move between different networks without creating problems with ownership or transaction records?
- Responsibility: Who deals with failed transfers, security incidents or systems that stop working?
- Business value: Does the technology actually save time, reduce costs or improve how assets can be used?
These questions help institutions understand whether a tokenisation project is ready to become part of their everyday operations. They also help separate what the technology can do from what it actually improves. For example, transferring a token in seconds might sound impressive.
But if the financial institution still needs to spend hours checking records or completing other parts of the transaction, the overall process might not be much faster. There are also cases where faster settlement isn't automatically the best option. The IMF's research points out that settling every transaction separately can reduce some risks, but it can also mean losing the benefits of netting.
This is where financial institutions work out what they owe each other and settle the difference, rather than making a separate payment for every transaction. That can reduce the amount of money and securities they need available to complete their trades.
So the question isn't necessarily how quickly a token can move. It's whether changing the process makes the entire transaction work better, without creating new problems elsewhere.
Final Thoughts: Tokenisation Depends On More Than Blockchain
DTCC's Tokenization Service is a good example of how blockchain technology is starting to become part of traditional financial infrastructure. Its planned Solana integration could take that further by connecting another public blockchain to an established securities system. But creating and transferring tokens is only part of the process.
Financial institutions still need to know who owns an asset, where it's held, when a transaction is complete and who's responsible if something goes wrong. And as more organisations start using tokenised assets, they'll need systems that can handle all of that while working together.
The question is no longer just whether traditional financial assets can be tokenised. It's whether the systems around them can keep up. And as those systems continue to change, understanding how new technology fits into the infrastructure businesses already rely on will become an increasingly important part of making good technology decisions.
That's the wider conversation EM360Tech continues to follow, helping enterprise leaders make sense of what's changing and what it means for their organisations.
Comments ( 0 )