Originally published in American Banker on 26 May 2026
A recent note from the IMF highlights tokenisation as a structural shift in financial architecture; it reconfigures trust, settlement, and risk management to the benefit of investors and issuers, but in their view also risks amplifying financial instability.
To counter these risks, the Note emphasizes the importance of international coordination, clear policy frameworks, public trust, and safe settlement assets. In the opinion of the IMF however, safe settlement assets doesn’t mean Bitcoin or USDt. It means wholesale central bank digital currencies (wCBDC). In this framework, stability comes from keeping assets within institutions that dictate how and when they move. They decide when a trade is final, who can access the asset, and whether it can move at all. The IMF’s position is not new. It echoes a long-standing preference across traditional finance: embrace the efficiency of blockchain infrastructure while containing the elements that redistribute control.
That structure still defines how markets function today. Custodians hold assets, and clearinghouses determine when transactions are final. Settlement cycles create time to intervene. Control sits inside those layers, and asset movement depends on them.
Tokenisation does not just accelerate settlement; it’s beginning to shift control away from those layers and closer to the asset itself. This way, assets settle as they move instead of having to wait for clearing cycles to complete. Ownership can be divided without the same constraints that have historically limited access. Assets are not tied to a single platform once issued. Instead, assets can move across venues without a centralized process checking each step. While intermediaries haven’t disappeared, they’re no longer part of every transaction. That’s where things begin to shift.
Technologists once described Bitcoin as a Trojan horse, as something that enters the financial system in a familiar form while carrying a different model of control underneath. That shift has been slower than expected. Over the past decade, digital asset markets have largely embraced traditional finance, not moved away from it. Exchanges have aligned with KYC and AML requirements, while regulated institutions have consolidated custody. Institutional participation has taken place through familiar structures, such as ETFs, which were designed to fit within the existing system. Tokenisation risks falling into this same trap. Some could argue that instead of disrupting the market, it is being shaped by those same regulatory and institutional pressures. But even within these limits, tokenisation has still introduced game-changing characteristics to the market. Assets can move more freely across platforms. They can be programmed. Ownership is now less dependent on intermediaries. The shift in control is not immediate or complete, but it is already taking form.
What makes tokenisation distinct from earlier cycles is that it introduces a workable middle ground. Whitelisted ecosystems allow issuers to meet regulatory requirements while still enabling investors to self-custody assets and trade peer-to-peer within defined parameters.
Tokenisation is being adopted from within the system, not alongside it. It’s improving how markets operate by making settlement faster, increasing their mobility, boosting transparency, and expanding access without forcing a structural break.
That shows up in a few ways. Ownership can be split more easily, opening access to a wider group of investors. Markets don’t really close anymore, which removes some of the time-based barriers that used to shape participation. Stablecoins make global settlement more practical, and assets aren’t as tied to a single platform as they once were.
But the features driving that adoption are the ones that redistribute control. Assets can be held directly within compliant environments, transferred between approved participants without waiting on a clearing process, and moved across platforms without being locked into a single venue. Control shifts closer to the holder of the asset.
That is the shift the IMF is reacting to, even if it does not frame it that way. Speed is the mechanism. Control is the driver of change.
In traditional markets, stress builds inside the same institutions that control custody and settlement. Delays can slow how that stress appears, but they also allow imbalances to build behind the system. In tokenised markets, adjustments happen continuously. Pressure is less likely to accumulate out of view because movement is not gated in the same way. Risk remains, but it is less concentrated.
The IMF’s response is to recreate those control points at the infrastructure level. That follows a familiar pattern of adopting what improves efficiency and containing what shifts control. Tokenisation makes that separation hard to maintain. Real-time settlement, direct ownership, and asset portability are not optional features. They define how the system works. Limiting them means limiting the system itself.
Tokenisation enters the system as an efficiency upgrade. That is why it is being adopted. Over time, it will change how assets are held and moved, even within compliant frameworks. The system adopts it because it makes markets more efficient. The shift in control follows.
Tokenisation is more an evolution of capital markets than a revolution. But like Bitcoin, it introduces structural changes that are difficult to contain once adopted. A market built on those terms doesn’t just move faster. It operates with a different understanding of who controls assets and how they move.
Jesse Knutson is head of operations at Bitfinex Securities, where he is responsible for expanding the platform’s issuance pipeline, overseeing distribution and building its user base while ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. Prior to this role, Knutson served as vice president of financial products at Blockstream, in addition to equities and trading roles at Macquarie Group and Barclays respectively.