Dionice na blockchainu: što su tokenizirane dionice i kako mogu promijeniti ulaganje?

Imagine we want to invest in Apple. We open an account with a broker, look up the ticker AAPL and buy one share or a fraction of one. Today, however, there is a second option. An investor can buy a blockchain token, such as AAPLx, whose value is linked to Apple shares. If the price of Apple shares rises, the value of this token should move in a similar direction. At first glance, the two products may therefore look almost identical. From a legal and technical perspective, however, the investor does not necessarily own the same thing. And it is precisely this difference that is key to understanding tokenised shares.

Blockchain is thus gradually entering an environment that for decades has been the domain of exchanges, brokers, banks, depositories and other financial institutions. This does not mean that traditional shares are disappearing or that they will be replaced by cryptocurrencies. Rather, a new way is emerging in which traditional financial assets can be recorded, transferred and traded. A share, a bond or a fund unit can remain a traditional financial instrument, while its ownership or economic value can be represented by a token on a blockchain.

Tokenisation is therefore not just another trend in the cryptocurrency market. It is a broader attempt to connect two worlds that have long developed separately: traditional capital markets and blockchain infrastructure. For the investor, however, one fundamental question remains: when I buy a token linked to a share, do I actually own the share, or merely a digital asset that tracks its value?

What it actually means to own a share

Before we get to tokenisation, it is important to recall what a traditional share represents. A share is a security that represents an ownership stake in a company. Depending on the specific type of share, its holder has certain economic and possibly also voting rights. For example, they may receive a dividend if the company pays one, or vote at the general meeting.

In practice, however, even owning a traditional share is not as simple as it may seem in an investment app. When we buy one Apple share through a broker, our name is not necessarily entered directly in Apple’s register of shareholders. Securities may be held through brokers, asset custodians and central securities depositories. The investor’s claim is recorded within this infrastructure.

On the screen, we therefore see a simple piece of information: Apple Inc., ticker AAPL, one share. Behind this entry, however, stands an entire system of institutions, registers, rules and processes that ensure the trade is executed correctly and ownership is properly recorded. Blockchain raises the question of whether some parts of this system could be technologically simplified or replaced by a different method of record-keeping.

What tokenising a share means

Tokenisation means that we represent a certain asset or right with a digital token on a blockchain. A token can represent a currency, a bond, a fund unit, a commodity, real estate or, indeed, a share. The mere fact that an asset exists as a blockchain token, however, does not yet determine what rights its holder actually has.

Several different models may exist under the label tokenised share. In one case, the blockchain token may be the technological form of a traditional security itself. In another model, a third party may buy traditional shares, hold them in custody and issue new tokens against them. There are also synthetic products that merely replicate the share price without the underlying share being held directly.

This is where one of the most important differences arises. Two products may both track the price of Apple shares and yet give investors entirely different rights. One may represent an actual security, the second a token backed by shares and the third merely a financial product whose value is derived from the price of Apple shares.

That is why it is not enough to see the company’s name and logo. The investor needs to know what a specific token represents legally and economically.

Apple as the main example: AAPL versus AAPLx

Apple is a good example of how the traditional and tokenised worlds differ. If we buy an Apple share with the ticker AAPL through a traditional broker, we acquire an investment in a security of Apple Inc. Depending on how it is held and on the broker’s rules, we are entitled to the corresponding economic and shareholder rights.

Alongside this, there are products such as AAPLx offered by xStocks. This is a blockchain token economically linked to Apple shares. According to the xStocks documentation, these tokens are backed 1:1 by the corresponding underlying shares, which are held within the relevant asset custody structure. The investor therefore gains exposure to the value of Apple shares through a blockchain token.

At first glance, the investor’s experience may be similar. If Apple shares rise by, say, ten per cent, the value of the token should roughly follow this movement. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between AAPL and AAPLx. The token holder does not automatically become a shareholder of Apple.

Specifically, according to the product documentation, xStocks are structured financial instruments referred to as tracker certificates. Their holders gain economic exposure to the underlying share, not direct shareholder rights. They therefore do not have, for example, the right to vote at Apple’s general meeting.

We thus have two investments linked to the same company. AAPL represents a traditional Apple share, while AAPLx is a blockchain product linked to its value. The price may be very similar, but the legal structure is different.

Dividends illustrate the difference very well

The difference between a traditional and a tokenised share can be clearly seen, for example, in the case of dividends. If Apple decides to pay a dividend, the holder of a traditional share is entitled to the relevant payment according to the terms of ownership. The money usually arrives in the investment account via the broker.

With a tokenised representation, the mechanism may be different. The holder may not receive the dividend in the traditional way because, from a legal perspective, they may not be a direct shareholder of the company. The specific provider must therefore determine how the economic effect of the dividend will be reflected in the token.

In the case of xStocks, according to the documentation, dividends are reinvested in additional underlying shares after the relevant withholding taxes have been taken into account. Their economic value is then reflected in the token position through a recalculation mechanism referred to as rebasing. The investor therefore receives the corresponding economic value, but in a different way than through a traditional cash dividend.

Dividends show precisely why it is not enough to compare only the price chart. Two products may respond to the share price almost identically, yet their legal nature, shareholder rights or the way corporate actions are handled may differ.

A tokenised share need not be a cryptocurrency

One common misconception is the idea that as soon as an asset exists on a blockchain, it automatically becomes a cryptocurrency. That, however, is not correct.

Blockchain is a technology. In itself, it does not determine whether an asset is bitcoin, a stablecoin, a bond or a share. If a regulated security is converted into tokenised form, its legal nature does not necessarily change simply because it is recorded on a blockchain.

This is also important from a regulatory perspective. A tokenised share may continue to fall under capital markets rules and securities regulation. In the European Union, for example, the MiCA Regulation does not apply to crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments under the MiFID II Directive. Such tokens are subject to the relevant legal regime for financial instruments.

This can be summed up in a simple principle: the technology on which an asset is recorded does not necessarily change its legal or economic substance.

Why tokenise shares at all

If traditional shares work, the logical question is why convert them to a blockchain at all. One of the main arguments concerns the infrastructure that stands between the buyer and the seller.

A traditional share trade may involve a broker, an exchange, a clearing house, an asset custodian, a depository and other entities. From the user’s point of view, the trade may seem instant, because after pressing the “Buy” button the position appears in the app. Behind the scenes, however, further processes continue in connection with settlement, the transfer of the security and the updating of records.

Blockchain can connect or automate some of these processes. The transfer of a token can take place simultaneously with the transfer of the corresponding digital payment, and the individual steps can be controlled by smart contracts. This can shorten the time lag between the conclusion and the settlement of a transaction and, at the same time, reduce the need for different institutions to maintain separate databases whose data must subsequently be reconciled with one another.

This does not mean that tokenisation will automatically eliminate all intermediaries. Shares still require a legal framework, an issuer, custody of assets and regulated infrastructure. Blockchain may, however, change the way information and assets flow between the individual parts of the system.

A token linked to a share can be traded even on a Saturday

Another frequently mentioned difference is trading hours. Traditional stock exchanges operate at set times. Blockchain, by contrast, runs continuously, seven days a week.

Some tokenised products therefore allow trading even outside standard exchange hours. The investor may thus be able to react to an event at a time when the traditional exchange is closed.

Imagine that Apple announces a very significant piece of news over the weekend. The traditional US stock market is closed, but a token linked to Apple may continue to trade. Its price may begin to react even before the exchange opens on Monday.

At the same time, however, this reveals a new problem. At that moment, the main market for Apple shares is not generating a fresh price. Liquidity in the tokenised market may be lower and the difference between the buying and selling price wider. Moreover, once the traditional market opens, it may turn out that investors reacted differently than the weekend blockchain market suggested.

Trading 24 hours a day, seven days a week, may therefore be an advantage, but it does not automatically mean a better price or higher liquidity. The availability of trading also depends on the specific platform.

Fractional investing is not the main revolution

With tokenised shares, the ability to buy just a small fraction of a more expensive share is often emphasised. The investor thus does not have to buy one whole share of a company, but can invest, for example, ten or twenty dollars.

This is useful, but in itself it is not a fundamental innovation. Fractional shares are now also offered by many traditional brokers. Blockchain therefore did not invent the ability to invest a small amount in an expensive share.

More interesting is what can happen to the token after the purchase. If it is transferable, the investor can send it to their own blockchain wallet. In some cases, it may be used in other blockchain applications or as collateral.

This is where the difference compared with a traditional brokerage account starts to grow. The investment no longer has to be just an item inside a single closed investment platform. The token can become part of a wider blockchain infrastructure.

When Apple meets DeFi

Imagine that we hold tokenised exposure to Apple in our own blockchain wallet. We do not necessarily have to just hold it or sell it. If the token is supported by a relevant decentralised finance (DeFi) application, it could serve, for example, as collateral.

The investor could thus hold economic exposure to Apple and at the same time obtain funds against this asset. Traditional finance, of course, also has loans secured by an investment portfolio. The difference is that in a blockchain environment, part of the process can be controlled by a smart contract.

This is where the two worlds genuinely begin to intertwine. An asset that originated on the traditional stock market is represented by a token and can subsequently become part of a decentralised finance application.

For users, this may bring new opportunities, but also additional risks. If the token is used as collateral in a smart contract, it is not enough to watch only the price of Apple shares. The investor must also take into account the security of the protocol, the smart contract and the blockchain network in question.

Apple is not the only example

The same principle does not apply only to Apple. Tokenised products can now also track other well-known shares and ETFs.

There are, for example, tokens linked to the shares of Tesla or Nvidia. The investor may thus come across products labelled TSLAx or NVDAx. Alongside individual shares, products linked to exchange-traded funds can also be tokenised in a similar way.

The principle remains the same. The investor should not only ask which company or index a token tracks. What matters is finding out who issued the token, how it is backed, who holds the underlying asset and what rights the investor actually acquires.

Apple is therefore a good example for explaining the whole concept, but the same logic may gradually apply to an ever larger part of the traditional financial market.

Who holds the actual share

With a token backed by a real share, one very important question arises. If the token holder does not own the underlying share directly, who does?

Someone has to buy it, hold it and manage it. An additional structure thus emerges between the investor and Apple, involving the token issuer, the asset manager and the institution responsible for their custody.

This means that the investor is no longer following only Apple’s business. They must also trust that the tokenisation system works as it should, and that the underlying shares actually exist and are properly segregated and recorded.

That is precisely why information about 1:1 backing is important, but not sufficient on its own. The investor also needs to know who holds the underlying assets, whether they are segregated from the provider’s assets and what rights they would have if problems arose.

What if the token provider goes bankrupt

This is one of the most important questions in the whole topic.

Imagine that a token genuinely corresponds to a certain number of Apple shares held with a custodian of the underlying assets. If, however, the company that issued the token or operates the entire system goes bankrupt, everything depends on the legal structure of the product.

Are the actual shares segregated from the operator’s assets? Does the token holder have a direct claim to the underlying assets? Can they demand that the assets be delivered to them? Or do they merely have a claim against the company that created the token?

Blockchain alone will not answer these questions.

It can transparently show that the token exists and at which address it is located. It does not, however, necessarily prove what legal claim its holder has to assets held off the blockchain.

This highlights an important difference between technical transparency and legal certainty.

Shares in your own blockchain wallet

One feature of some tokenised products is the ability to transfer the token from the platform to your own wallet. The investor can thus hold, for example, bitcoin, a stablecoin and tokenised exposure to Apple all in one place.

From a cryptocurrency user’s point of view, this may be a natural advantage. They do not have to keep all their funds inside a single investment platform and can work with them directly via the blockchain.

With greater control, however, also comes greater responsibility.

If the investor loses access to their own wallet, sends a token to the wrong address or approves a malicious transaction, there may be no broker they can simply call and ask to put things right.

Holding tokens yourself, known as self-custody, is therefore not merely a technological advantage. It is a trade-off of some convenience and protection for greater control over the asset.

Smart contracts can also change how tokenised shares work

A tokenised financial instrument can use smart contracts not only for token transfers but also to automate other rules.

Imagine, for example, a tokenised share that may only be held by verified investors from permitted jurisdictions. Before a transfer, a smart contract can check whether the destination address meets the relevant conditions.

Another mechanism may automate certain corporate actions or the distribution of payments. Rules that today require communication between several institutions may be partly transferred to programmable infrastructure.

Programmability may be one of the greatest advantages of tokenisation. At the same time, however, a new risk arises once again. If there is a bug directly in the smart contract, it becomes part of the mechanism that manages the asset.

Tokenisation therefore does not bring a world without risk. Rather, it reduces some traditional risks while adding others.

Regulation remains crucial

The tokenisation of shares is no longer merely an experiment by cryptocurrency projects. Regulators in both the United States and Europe are increasingly addressing the question of how tokenised securities should work.

The basic principle is fairly simple. If a token genuinely represents a security, it should not escape securities regulation merely because it uses a blockchain.

At the same time, however, it is necessary to distinguish between a genuine tokenised share and a third-party product that merely provides economic exposure to its performance. The investor’s rights may differ considerably.

In the European Union, moreover, the so-called DLT Pilot Regime is being used to test the use of distributed ledger technology for the trading and settlement of regulated financial instruments. This regime has applied since March 2023 and shows that blockchain is no longer seen merely as infrastructure for cryptocurrencies, but also as a possible technological component of the traditional financial system.

The biggest change may be one the investor never sees

Much of the debate about tokenised shares focuses on whether it will be possible to trade 24 hours a day or to hold a share in a blockchain wallet. The biggest change, however, may not be visible on the investor’s screen at all.

Tokenisation may mainly change the infrastructure in the background.

Ownership records, trade settlement, transfers between institutions, asset custody, corporate actions or the use of securities as collateral may gradually become more automated.

Meanwhile, the investor may continue to see the same button: Buy Apple.

The difference will lie in what happens after it is pressed.

This is perhaps the most interesting scenario for tokenisation. Blockchain need not necessarily change what investing looks like. It may change the infrastructure that makes it work.

What risks tokenised shares bring

Tokenisation does not eliminate the basic investment risk. If Apple starts to struggle and its shares fall significantly, a token linked to Apple will probably fall as well.

On top of this ordinary market risk, however, tokenisation adds further layers. There may be risks relating to the token issuer, the manager of the underlying assets, their custody, the blockchain network, the smart contract or low liquidity. If the token is transferred between several blockchains, there may also be the risk of the cross-network transfer infrastructure, known as a bridge.

With a product created by a third party, legal risk is also important. The investor needs to know what actual claim they have to the underlying asset.

This does not mean that a tokenised share must automatically be riskier than a traditional share. It means that it has a different risk structure.

The question “Do I believe in Apple?” is therefore joined by another: “Do I also understand the product through which I am investing in Apple?”

What we should know before buying

If an investor comes across a token linked to a well-known share, they should not start only by asking whether they expect its price to rise. First, they need to understand the product itself.

Is the token a genuine security, or was it issued by a third party? Is it backed by underlying shares? Who holds them? Is the investor entitled to the original share? Do they have voting rights? How are dividends handled? Can the token be transferred to your own wallet? What happens if the provider becomes insolvent, and what regulatory regime is the product subject to?

Only then does it make sense to consider the actual investment case for Apple, Tesla, Nvidia or any other company.

Tokenisation changes the form of the product. It should not, however, change the basic rule of investing: we must know what we actually own.

Will tokenised shares replace traditional exchanges?

There is no definite answer to this question today. It is possible that an ever larger share of financial assets will use blockchain infrastructure in the future and that some of today’s trading and settlement processes will change fundamentally.

That does not mean, however, that exchanges, banks or brokers must disappear.

A far more realistic scenario may be one in which these institutions start using blockchain themselves. The user may continue to buy shares through a regulated broker, but the recording or settlement of some transactions will take place using distributed ledger technology.

Blockchain therefore need not replace the traditional financial system. It may become part of it.

From cryptocurrencies to tokenised finance

Bitcoin showed that a digital asset can exist directly on a blockchain. Stablecoins brought digital representations of traditional currencies into the same environment. Tokenised shares take this idea further and show that blockchain can also be used for assets that existed long before cryptocurrencies emerged.

Shares are not the only example. Experiments in the same direction are being carried out with bonds, investment funds, commodities and other financial instruments.

The boundary between “crypto” and “traditional finance” may therefore gradually become less clear-cut. Perhaps one day the most important question will no longer be whether a particular asset is “a share or crypto”.

What will matter more is knowing what it represents, what rights are attached to it and on what infrastructure it is recorded.

Conclusion

Tokenised shares show that blockchain is no longer just an environment for bitcoin, ether or stablecoins. The same technology can also be used for traditional financial assets. An investor can thus gain economic exposure to Apple, for example, through a traditional AAPL share, but also through the AAPLx blockchain token. Both products may track the value of the same share, yet their legal and technical structures differ fundamentally.

Tokenisation may bring faster settlement, wider transfer options, programmability, trading outside standard exchange hours or integration with other blockchain applications. At the same time, however, it adds risks associated with the token issuer, asset custody, smart contracts and the legal position of the holder.

The future therefore need not mean that blockchain replaces the stock market. Rather, it may change the infrastructure on which it runs. And for the investor, the same basic rule will still apply as today: it is not enough to know which company we want to invest in. We must also know exactly what we are buying.

This text serves informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Crypto assets are volatile, and you may lose the entire amount invested.