By Dr. Antonio Tejeda Encinas<\/strong><\/a> CEO, Meta Channel Corporation<\/strong><\/a> President, Comite Euro Americano de Derecho Digital -CEA Digital Law<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The starting point: Securitize, the CNMV, and the superficial reading of the milestone<\/strong><\/p>\n The CNMV’s authorization of Securitize as a DLT Trading and Settlement System under Regulation (EU) 2022\/858 has been received as confirmation that “the tokenized stock exchange” is now a reality in Spain. It is a relevant step: for the first time, a DLT infrastructure combining trading and settlement has received the green light in our country.<\/p>\n The problem does not lie in the CNMV’s decision. The problem lies in how it is being read.<\/p>\n This milestone is being presented as if it were enough to claim that the Spanish ecosystem already has a mature framework for “tokenizing anything”, in any form and at any stage. And that is not the case. The existence of an infrastructure does not, by itself, resolve the decisive question: how the asset that is placed on that infrastructure is structured.<\/p>\n 2. The conceptual error: confusing the secondary market with the architecture of the asset<\/strong><\/p>\n The current euphoria revolves around the secondary market: listing, trading, liquidity, accessibility.<\/p>\n But this entire layer rests on a prior question that is rarely posed clearly:<\/p>\n What right, exactly, is the investor acquiring when they buy that token?<\/p>\n If the answer is not legally armor-plated, it does not matter whether the token is traded on a DLT TSS, on a traditional MTF, or on a “democratizing” platform. We will still be talking about fragile structures, exposed to regulatory, tax, and reputational problems.<\/p>\n Technology solves the transfer. Legal architecture solves the content. And right now the market talks a great deal about the former and very little about the latter.<\/p>\n 3. Two different leagues: retail democratization vs. institutional structuring<\/strong><\/p>\n Today, two different logics in fact coexist.<\/p>\n On the one hand, a democratizing, retail-oriented logic, which makes it possible to participate in transactions with tickets of 50, 100, or 500 euros. Its value is clear: it opens doors to those who would never have accessed certain assets.<\/p>\n On the other, an institutional or quasi-institutional logic, where we are talking about transactions of 5 to 50 million (or more), with issuers that are not looking to “democratize” anything, but rather to optimize structures, diversify financing, integrate the digital layer into already regulated ecosystems, and do so without creating a problem with their supervisor, their auditor, or their international parent company.<\/p>\n According to recent data, the global tokenized asset market reached 24 billion dollars in 2025, with 308% growth in three years. Projections by Standard Chartered estimate that it could reach 30 trillion by 2034. This expansion does not eliminate the need for solid legal architecture. It amplifies it.<\/p>\n The error in the current discourse is treating both worlds as if they were interchangeable. They are not. They share the word “token”, but they live in completely different legal, economic, and reputational frameworks.<\/p>\n 4. The “low cost” of tokenization: useful, but not transferable to every scenario<\/strong><\/p>\n In Spain and other markets, very effective low-cost tokenization models are taking hold. They simplify entry, reduce costs, shorten timelines, and allow small investors to access fractions of assets that were previously out of their reach.<\/p>\n That is positive. But it is positive in its own league.<\/p>\n The problem begins when there is an attempt to transfer that same approach to transactions that involve several jurisdictions, require cascading corporate structures, are embedded in heavily regulated sectors (energy, financial, audiovisual), or generate economic flows that intersect with different tax systems.<\/p>\n Pretending that a complex transaction can be resolved under the same logic as the purchase of 100 euros of “a tokenized slice of an apartment” is a dangerous fiction.<\/p>\n 5. The true core: the asset, not the token<\/strong><\/p>\n A token is a technical interface. It is not the asset. It is not the transaction. It is not the business.<\/p>\n When someone buys a token, they are actually buying a legal position within a specific structure, with a particular tax regime, an expectation of rights (payment, participation, use, access), and a scheme of guarantees, governance, and liability behind it.<\/p>\n If that structure is not solidly defined, the token can circulate very quickly\u2026 toward a dispute.<\/p>\n The obsession with “technological innovation” has created the illusion that the problem lies in choosing the right blockchain, the correct token standard, or the most user-friendly platform. In the institutional segment, this is secondary. What is decisive is what the token represents and how it is given legal and regulatory life.<\/p>\n 6. MiCA is not a safe harbor for just any real-asset token<\/strong><\/p>\n Since the approval of MiCA, a dangerous narrative has taken hold: the idea that there is a broad space of “non-financial crypto-assets” where anything fits as long as it is not called a “negotiable security”.<\/p>\n That is a mistaken reading.<\/p>\n MiCA applies to crypto-assets that are not financial instruments. But if the design of the token promises a return, ties the investor’s economic success to the issuer’s success, offers credit or participation rights, or replicates behaviors characteristic of a security, the perimeter is not MiCA, but MiFID II \/ the Securities Market Law.<\/strong><\/p>\n Thus, many projects that are today marketed as “utility tokens linked to real assets” are not really in the MiCA space, but skirting \u2014or squarely within\u2014 the perimeter of negotiable securities. And that difference is not resolved with slogans.<\/p>\n 7. The Spanish case: what a well-executed issuance (really) teaches<\/strong><\/p>\n The example of issuances such as Dianelum, with an authorized ERIR, a SaaS platform, a securities agency, and professional custody, does not prove that “anyone can tokenize”. It proves the opposite.<\/p>\n It proves that a solid legal architecture was necessary, along with fine-tuned coordination between the platform, the ERIR, the custodian, and legal counsel, and a clear fit within the Securities Market Law.<\/p>\n In other words: a serious issuance brings us back to the starting point. To issue a legally sustainable tokenized asset, the critical question is not “which network do we build it on?”, but “what exactly are we issuing and under what regime?”.<\/p>\n 8. Who serves the complex space today\u2026 and where there is still a gap<\/strong><\/p>\n It would be false to claim that the space of 5\u201350 million transactions is “covered by no one”. It would be equally naive to deny the role of large international law firms, integrated platforms, and high-end boutiques.<\/p>\n That fabric exists. And in many cases it works well.<\/p>\n Where a gap remains is in a specific terrain: transactions that cross several jurisdictions in non-standard ways (Europe\u2013Latam\u2013Africa), combine financial regulation with sector-specific regulation (energy, audiovisual, data economy), require an institutional and geo-technopolitical reading, and need a flexible architecture agreed upon with several counterparties.<\/p>\n In those projects, traditional vertical structures \u2014very powerful in their natural domain\u2014 do not always offer the agility and multi-level coordination needed when the transaction is still in the conception phase.<\/p>\n That is where it makes sense to speak of strategic architecture as a differentiated function.<\/p>\n 9. Where META Channel Corporation sits on this map<\/strong><\/p>\n META Channel Corporation is not a tokenization platform, nor a market infrastructure, nor a TSS, nor a SaaS provider competing with Securitize, Token City, or other players in the ecosystem.<\/p>\n Nor does it present itself as an alternative to large law firms or the Big Four in their natural field.<\/p>\n Its function, through the TokenLab by META Channel Corporation division, sits before the choice of platform or infrastructure. <\/strong>The focus is on the design of the transaction, not on its technological execution.<\/em><\/p>\n In functional terms, META Channel Corporation:<\/p>\n Designs legal and corporate architectures for projects that contemplate the tokenization of real assets;<\/p>\n analyzes the regulatory fit (LMV\/MiFID, MiCA, sector-specific regulation, private international law);<\/p>\n structures corporate governance and agreements among partners, investors, and operators;<\/p>\n coordinates the tax layer in multi-jurisdictional environments;<\/p>\n and prepares the asset so that tokenization \u2014where appropriate\u2014 is embedded in a legally solid structure.<\/p>\n META Channel Corporation does not act as an “in-house” provider of every service. It operates as a strategic architect and orchestrator, coordinating technical, tax, sector-specific, and technology specialists according to the needs of each project.<\/p>\n Geographic focus: the work can be concentrated, or not, depending on the client, on connecting the Canary Islands as a technological and tax hub with emerging markets in Colombia, Angola, and the countries of the Southern Cone, leveraging the frameworks of the Canary Islands Economic and Tax Regime (ZEC, RIC) and its strategic position between Europe, Africa, and Latin America.<\/p>\n META Channel Corporation does not sell “tokenization”. It sells structure:<\/strong> the design of the asset, the vehicle, and the transaction so that tokenization, when it makes sense, is possible, secure, and scalable.<\/p>\n 10. Back to the initial question<\/strong><\/p>\n The authorization of Securitize as a DLT TSS is not the end of anything. It is the beginning of a stage in which it will become clear who has understood that the center of gravity lies in the asset and its architecture, and who has remained trapped in the fascination with the token and the marketplace.<\/p>\n Low cost has its role. It democratizes access. It builds financial literacy. It opens doors. But it cannot become the mental model for designing complex transactions in transnational environments.<\/em><\/p>\n In that segment, the question is not “where do we list the token?”, but “what exactly have we designed so that listing it makes sense?”.<\/p>\n About the author<\/strong><\/p>\n Dr. Antonio Tejeda Encinas is CEO of META Channel Corporation, a Praxis House specializing in integrating law, strategy, and technology for transnational transactions. META Channel Corporation operates in three main areas: legal and corporate architecture in Europe\u2013Latam\u2013Africa environments; strategy and regulatory compliance in disruptive technologies (MiCA, AI Act, DORA, NIS2, GDPR); and development of technology solutions applied to compliance (RegTech and GovTech). META Channel is not a tokenization platform. The TokenLab by META Channel division acts as a specialized unit for the prior legal-regulatory design of real assets that may eventually be tokenized, ensuring their compatibility with European and non-European frameworks.<\/p>\n Dr. Tejeda Encinas also chairs the Comit\u00e9 Euroamericano de Derecho Digital -CEA Digital Law, an international network present in 25 countries dedicated to digital governance, data diplomacy, and legal-technological research.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Dr. Antonio Tejeda Encinas CEO, Meta Channel Corporation President, Comite Euro Americano de Derecho Digital -CEA Digital Law 1. The starting point: Securitize, the CNMV, and the superficial reading of the milestone The CNMV’s authorization of Securitize as a DLT Trading and Settlement System under Regulation (EU) 2022\/858 has been received as confirmation that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":116377,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"wds_primary_category":0,"wds_primary_cea_women":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1103],"tags":[],"cea_women":[],"class_list":["post-118418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blockchain-crypto-assets"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118418","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118418"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118418\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":119213,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118418\/revisions\/119213"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/116377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118418"},{"taxonomy":"cea_women","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cea_women?post=118418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}