Tokenization stirs the backstage of global finance. Presented as the next wave of innovation, it could attract millions of investors and billions of dollars in the coming years. Between traditional banks, crypto start-ups and regulators, bets are mounting on the shape this new ecosystem will take. The International Monetary Fund, meanwhile, steps into the arena with a more cautious message: yes, tokenization changes the game. But it also brings systemic risks that must not be underestimated.
With tokenization, everything becomes faster: transactions, settlements, executions. The promises are huge. No more intermediaries nor banking delays. BlackRock, through its BUIDL fund, and Franklin Templeton have understood this well: they tokenize U.S. Treasury bonds, reap the gains and boost efficiency.
But the IMF pulls the emergency brake. This speed could trigger flash crashes more violent than ever. Coded automations forgive nothing: in case of bug or panic, markets fall before a human even has time to react.
The IMF warns: stacked one on top of the other, smart contracts can fall like digital dominos. This local imbalance could then turn into a global shock, instantly spreading throughout the entire tokenized system.
Automation is formidable. It pushes to maximum speed, but without a safety net. And when machines dictate the rules, flaws can become systemic. The challenge is no longer technical, but structural: how to slow down a market launched at full speed?
In the collective imagination, tokenization evokes a fluid world, without barriers. Yet, reality is far more fragmented. Each player — bank, start-up or DAO — builds its own architecture. Result: technological islands unable to communicate with each other.
The IMF and IOSCO worry about this missing interoperability. Platforms that “do not talk to each other” cause a depletion of global liquidity, with assets blocked, distorted prices, and reduced efficiency.
As the specialized media The Paypers points out:
Interoperability is an important point. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area.
This fragmentation even affects stablecoins, though they are presented as the pillars of digital finance. Each applies its own rules: reserve, audit, convertibility. Result: confusion, duplicates, and growing mistrust.
And what about disputes? If two platforms tokenize the same asset differently, who truly owns it? Without shared standards, legal security wavers. And in finance, insecurity means crisis.
Tokenization does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a monetary history marked by state interventions. From the Bretton Woods system to the collapse of the gold standard in the 1970s, every mutation saw governments regain control.
Today, the IMF reminds us that history could repeat itself:
Governments have rarely contented themselves with remaining on the sidelines during major monetary shifts.
Behind the scenes, JPMorgan and Citi are already refining their own private tokens. JPM Coin enables continuous transfers on the blockchain, 24/7, while Citi Token Services is moving towards closed B2B applications. No anarchy here. But private, centralized finance in the hands of giants.
Will tokenized finance be a decentralized utopia or a technological remake of dominant institutions? If the state enters the arena, the answer could quickly lean towards strict regulations, licenses, and imposed safeguards.
Tokenized markets represent more than just a technological turning point. They rewrite the rules of investment by transforming rigid assets into fluid, divisible, and accessible instruments for all. Tokenization of RWA could well become the link between traditional economy and a programmable future. Provided this new bridge is secured before it falters under its own weight.
