← Third Consequence

Tokenization

Tokenizing the asset is
the easy part.

The contracts get written, the chain gets chosen, the launch happens. The questions that decide whether the programme still exists in three years arrive later, and they are almost never technical.

They are demand, structure, operating model and cost.

A token is a utility with a lifecycle. A token for its own sake is never needed.

Almost nothing fails because the token did not work. It fails because the token was never tied to anything — no purpose the product required, no design that served that purpose, no honest read after launch, and no line connecting it to what ships next.

And launching a token is a separate business. It has its own holders, its own economics, its own operations and its own obligations. It has to overlap with the core product and the utility that justifies it, and it never becomes the same business. Companies get this wrong in both directions: treating the token as one more item on the roadmap, or running it so far from the product that nothing connects.

Which means a second business now sits inside the company, crossing legal, product, finance, communications and operations. Issuance gets a vendor, a timeline and a budget. What follows it rarely does: who holds the record when the chain and the registrar disagree, what a continuous market implies for a team that works weekdays, and what the fully loaded cost per holder turns out to be once compliance, custody and support are counted.

A second business, crossing every function, without a single owner. That is the work.

The questions that are cheap now and expensive later.

Useful whether or not we ever speak. If your team can answer all of these, you are further along than most.

Demand

  • Who buys the tokenized version who was not already a buyer of the underlying? If the answer is the same people through a different pipe, tokenizing has added cost rather than demand.
  • Is the friction you are removing the binding constraint, or just the visible one? Settlement speed rarely explains why an asset was hard to sell in the first place.
  • At what float and holder count does a secondary market actually function? Most tokenized assets do not fail at issuance. They fail quietly in secondary, over about eighteen months.

Structure and eligibility

  • Is it a security, in which jurisdictions, and does the answer change as it moves?
  • Who is permitted to hold it, and is that enforced on-chain, off-chain, or both? This single answer sets your distribution model and most of your cost base.
  • When the chain and the registrar disagree about ownership, which one is the record? Worth writing down before it happens rather than during.

Operating model

  • Who performs transfer agency, and what happens when a holder dies, loses keys, or becomes sanctioned?
  • A 24/7 market implies 24/7 operations. Who is on call on Sunday, and what are they authorised to decide?
  • What is the pricing source, how often does it publish, and who is liable when it is wrong?

Cost after launch

  • What is the fully loaded cost per holder per year, including compliance, custody, reporting and support? Issuance cost is always modelled. This one rarely is.
  • What happens to that cost base at ten times the holders and the same assets under management? Fractional access is a support-cost multiplier before it is a revenue one.
  • Who signs the audit, and what did they quote?

Consequence

  • If the token trades persistently below the value of the underlying, what is the response? This has ended more programmes than any technical failure.
  • What does continuous redeemability do to liquidity management in the underlying asset?
  • If you decide to stop, what does unwinding cost, and who explains it to the holders?

Where I fit

I am not the person who writes the contracts. I am the one who lives with what they commit you to.

Issued, not observed

I co-founded Odos and served as COO for four and a half years. That included the ODOS token end to end: strategy, token design, the white paper, DAO formation, launch, and the part that gets the least attention anywhere — managing and assessing it afterwards. I had designed and written up tokens before that one. I have also been through the other end of the lifecycle, which very few people offering tokenization advice have: I ran the company’s wind-down. The question above about what unwinding costs and who explains it to holders is not a hypothetical to me.

The rest of the stack

Odos routed more than $110 billion across chains for millions of wallets. Before it, fifteen years of corporate development, M&A and business integration across enterprise data security, telecommunications, automotive retail and consumer markets, and more than thirty-five completed transactions. Earlier still, a financial advisor at Morgan Stanley; I held Series 7, 63 and 24. I have operated in blockchain since 2015 and continue to serve on a board. The hard problems here sit between securities structure and operating reality, and most people speak fluently about one side or the other.

What I do with it

I establish what is actually true about the demand, the structure and the cost, name what the plan has not accounted for, and carry the decision through execution. Sometimes that is a focused intervention before a commitment is made. Sometimes it is a standing seat alongside the CEO and the board through the stage where the answers stop being theoretical.

The full practice →