Securitize vs Tokeny: Compliant Tokenization Platforms

Deep liquidity partnerships: Direct connectivity to regulated secondary markets like INX and ADDX. This matters for issuers prioritizing investor liquidity, as it provides a clear path for compliant trading post-issuance without building new exchange relationships.

Granular rule-set management: Enforces transfer restrictions across different regulatory regimes (e.g., MiFID II, SEC rules) within a single token contract. This matters for global issuers (e.g., private equity, real estate) distributing securities to investors across multiple jurisdictions from a single issuance.

• Traditional asset managers launching their first digital fund.
• Use cases requiring investor relations & cap table tools.
• Projects where a managed, end-to-end SaaS experience outweighs the need for deep technical customization.

• Tech-first companies embedding tokenization into an existing product.
• Protocols needing to enforce complex, on-chain compliance logic.
• Institutions with in-house legal/tech teams that prefer API components over a monolithic platform.

Specific advantage: Operates its own SEC-registered transfer agent (Securitize Markets) and broker-dealer. This provides a vertically integrated compliance stack for U.S. securities. This matters for institutions requiring direct SEC oversight and seamless secondary market operations on platforms like Avalanche and Polygon.

Specific trade-off: The DS Protocol is proprietary, creating dependency on Securitize's infrastructure for lifecycle management (dividends, voting). This matters for protocols seeking maximum interoperability or those wanting to own their entire compliance logic, as it can limit flexibility compared to open standards like ERC-3643.

Specific advantage: Built on the ERC-3643 (T-REX) standard, an open-source, audited framework for permissioned tokens. This matters for developers and enterprises who prioritize interoperability, wish to avoid vendor lock-in, or need to deploy on EVM chains like Ethereum, Polygon, or Avalanche with a self-managed solution.

Specific trade-off: Tokeny provides the tokenization engine and compliance layer but does not operate its own SEC-registered broker-dealer. This matters for U.S.-focused issuers who must partner with a separate licensed entity for primary issuance and secondary trading, adding complexity to the operational stack.

Specific advantage: Operates a FINRA-registered broker-dealer (Securitize Markets) and an SEC-registered transfer agent. This full-stack regulatory status is critical for primary issuance and secondary trading of digital securities in the US. It matters for projects requiring a turnkey solution for SEC-compliant fundraising and secondary market liquidity, as evidenced by major deployments like KKR's Health Care Strategic Growth Fund.

Specific advantage: Pioneered the DS Protocol (DS-01, DS-02), an open-source standard for compliant digital securities on Ethereum and Avalanche. This creates a network effect where wallets and exchanges can integrate a single standard to support multiple issuers. It matters for architects building an interoperable ecosystem, reducing integration friction compared to proprietary systems.

Specific advantage: Its ERC-3643 token standard (T-REX) embeds compliance rules (KYC/AML, investor accreditation) directly into the smart contract logic via on-chain claims. This enables real-time, automated enforcement of transfer restrictions without relying on a centralized whitelist. It matters for issuers who prioritize decentralized compliance enforcement and immutable audit trails, a common requirement in European markets.

Specific advantage: Built as a modular suite of smart contracts and APIs, deployable across Ethereum, Polygon, and other EVM chains. This offers issuers flexibility in chain selection based on cost and speed. It matters for VPs of Engineering managing multi-chain strategies or needing to tokenize assets where transaction cost predictability is paramount.

Specific trade-off: Its deep integration with the US regulatory framework (SEC, FINRA) can create operational overhead and complexity for purely international offerings. The platform's strengths are optimized for US capital markets compliance, which may be over-engineered or misaligned for projects targeting jurisdictions with different regulatory regimes.

Specific trade-off: While the ERC-3643 standard is gaining traction, its broader ecosystem of integrated wallets, custodians, and exchanges is less mature than the longer-established DS Protocol network. This matters for issuers who require immediate, out-of-the-box liquidity partnerships and fear fragmented market access.