Inside the rise of institutional tokenization: key insights from Brickken’s AMA

cointelegraph2025-12-08 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-12-08 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Sponsored Content: Brickken CEO Edwin Mata discussed the institutional adoption of tokenization, tracing its evolution from theoretical concept to practical deployment. Originating from a legal background, Mata's deep dive into blockchain revealed the potential of open ledgers for instant, global value transfer. This led to Brickken's founding, starting with security token offerings. Regulatory acceptance from Spain's securities regulator was a key turning point, enabling expansion to public chains. Brickken's platform now supports over $300M in tokenized assets across 16 countries and 100+ institutional clients. Demand is driven by market forces, with institutions seeking operational efficiency, faster settlement, and cross-border reach in areas like commodities, credit, and real estate. Tokenization is viewed as a functional upgrade, with adoption dictated by capital allocation and practical use cases.

Sponsored Content

Tokenization moved from theory to institutional deployment. Brickken’s CEO and Co-Founder Edwin Mata traced the company’s path from early compliance pilots to public-chain infrastructure.“It radically changed my life — I became drawn to technology,” he said of his first deep dive into blockchain.

Origins: from legal practice to building on open ledgers

Mata entered crypto from an in-house legal role, where a grant-funded project forced him to study smart contracts and blockchain in detail.

The turning point was understanding open ledgers and value transfer. He recalled realizing that transactions are visible and auditable, and that settlement can be instant and global. “You can transfer value instantly, atomically, worldwide,” he said.

That insight led to the idea that financial instruments in any format would eventually run on blockchains due to these characteristics. Brickken began with security token offerings, then expanded as market understanding caught up.

Building infrastructure while regulation took shape

Before 2021, uncertainty around public and permissioned chains limited what institutions were ready to test. Brickken began in controlled environments while the team explored regulatory boundaries.

A turning point came when the company received a grant in Spain and presented its approach to the national securities regulator inside the Spanish sandbox. The regulator accepted the legality of the model, which allowed the team to expand to public chains and build modular infrastructure around issuance and lifecycle management.

Brickken then scaled its platform to support financial instruments across equity, credit, real estate and other assets, working directly with institutional clients in regulated settings.

The AMA noted that the platform now supports more than $300M in tokenized assets across 16 countries and works with over 100 institutional clients. Mata explained that this progress reflects the maturity of the sector: “We started doing everything on public infrastructures, connecting the dots with other players.”

Market signals, institutional demand and what comes next

Tokenization is increasingly shaped by real capital flows. Brickken sees demand concentrating in areas where markets are already active. Over recent months, commodity issuers approached the platform as gold prices moved, seeking liquidity and operational efficiency. According to Mata, this pattern is consistent with how institutions evaluate technology. “The trend is set by the capital, by the market itself,” he said.

The AMA highlighted that institutions view tokenization as a functional upgrade: faster settlement, cross-border reach and reduced reconciliation steps. These properties align with how capital markets operate, and adoption is increasingly driven by efficiency and practical use cases.

When asked about the next major industry to move on-chain, Mata pointed to the same underlying dynamic. Tokenization can support credit, funds, real estate or commodities, but the priority depends on where institutions are allocating resources. Brickken prepares for that by providing compliant infrastructure through web app, white-label or API, enabling integrations with existing systems and workflows.

Explore Brickken

İlgili Okumalar

Encryption Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Under the Conflict of Criminal and Civil Procedures

"Encrypted Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Amidst Criminal-Civil Procedure Conflicts" This article examines the challenges victims face in seeking legal recourse for cryptocurrency theft or fraud in China, highlighting the tension between criminal and civil procedures. Through two representative cases, it illustrates how cross-jurisdictional complexities and regulatory ambiguities often hinder effective relief. In Case 1, a South Korean company paid 800,000 USDT to a Chinese employee of an S-based exchange for listing services, only to have the employee disappear. Despite legal efforts citing属地管辖 (territorial jurisdiction) and the property-like status of virtual assets under China’s "9.24 Notice," local police initially refused to accept the case due to the foreign elements involved. After persistent advocacy, the case was accepted but not formally立案 (registered). Case 2 involved a woman scammed out of over 3 million RMB while attempting to purchase USDT through an OTC trader for investment. While the trader was arrested, the main fraudster remained abroad. Civil action against the trader for unjust enrichment failed, as courts cited the "criminal-first" principle (刑事优先), requiring criminal resolution before civil claims can proceed. The analysis reveals that civil remedies are often impractical when criminal elements are involved: courts may transfer such cases to police, and even successful criminal convictions may not guarantee restitution if perpetrators lack assets. The author concludes that, despite guides on civil litigation, pursuing criminal avenues remains the more viable—though still fraught—path for victims seeking recovery. The piece underscores systemic hurdles, including judicial reluctance to recognize crypto-related claims and procedural barriers, urging greater clarity in legal frameworks to protect victims.

比推11 dk önce

Encryption Claims Dilemma: The Reality of Rights Protection Under the Conflict of Criminal and Civil Procedures

比推11 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片