When a team decides to tokenize a financial product, one of the first decisions is which infrastructure to build on. That choice determines the wrapper type, the custody arrangement, the redemption path, the compliance model, and which chains and protocols the product can reach.

These are not interchangeable. A product built on Securitize has a different legal structure, different distribution constraints, and different composability profile than the same underlying strategy built on Centrifuge or Midas. The platform is not just a technical detail. It is a structural decision that shapes the product.

This piece compares ten platforms that represent distinct approaches to tokenization infrastructure. It is not a ranking. It is a map of the structural differences that matter when building or evaluating a tokenized product. The tokenization infrastructure landscape is broader than what is covered here, and new platforms continue to emerge. The goal is to illustrate the range of models and the trade-offs each one implies.

What the platform layer does

A tokenization platform provides some or all of the infrastructure required to issue, manage, and distribute a tokenized financial product. At minimum, this includes smart contract deployment and token issuance. At the other end, it can include transfer agent services, custody, compliance enforcement, investor onboarding, secondary market access, and fund administration.

The scope of what the platform provides varies significantly. Some platforms are full-stack: they handle issuance, compliance, custody, and distribution as an integrated service. Others provide a narrower set of tools and leave the issuer to assemble the rest. Understanding what the platform does and does not provide is essential to understanding what the issuer is responsible for.

Where platforms diverge

Six dimensions capture many of the meaningful differences between tokenization platforms:

  • Wrapper type. What legal instrument does the token represent? A fund share, a note, a certificate, an LP interest, or a direct claim on an onchain pool? The wrapper determines the holder’s legal rights and recourse.
  • Custody model. Where are the underlying assets held, and by whom? Custody can range from regulated third-party custodians to smart-contract-based vaults to the issuer’s own infrastructure.
  • Redemption mechanics. How does the holder exit? Through the issuer, through a secondary market, through an onchain burn mechanism, or some combination? What are the timing, notice, and settlement constraints?
  • Compliance approach. How are investor eligibility and transfer restrictions enforced? Through onchain allowlists, offchain KYC/AML checks, transfer agent controls, or a combination?
  • Chain strategy. Which blockchains does the platform support? Is the product native to one chain, bridged across multiple chains, or deployed on a purpose-built network?
  • Composability. Can the token be used in DeFi protocols? As collateral, in liquidity pools, in structured products? Is composability a design goal or an incidental property?

Full-stack regulated

These platforms provide end-to-end infrastructure under regulatory registrations. They handle issuance, compliance, transfer agency, and in some cases custody and distribution as an integrated service.

Securitize

Securitize operates as a registered transfer agent, broker-dealer, alternative trading system (ATS), investment adviser, and fund administrator. It is the most vertically integrated tokenization platform, providing the full stack from issuance through secondary trading.

Products built on Securitize are typically structured as fund shares or notes under US securities law. Investor eligibility is enforced through Securitize’s KYC/AML process and onchain transfer restrictions. The platform supports multiple chains (Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, Aptos, Solana, and others via Wormhole NTT bridges) with Securitize maintaining control over token transfers across all of them.

Notable products include BlackRock’s BUIDL (tokenized treasury fund), Apollo’s ACRED (tokenized credit fund), and Hamilton Lane’s tokenized PE funds. Securitize’s position as transfer agent means it maintains the authoritative record of ownership regardless of which chain the token sits on.

Trade-offs: Deep regulatory integration provides institutional credibility but creates platform dependency. The issuer relies on Securitize for compliance, transfer agency, and distribution. Composability exists (BUIDL and sACRED are used as DeFi collateral) but is mediated by Securitize’s compliance controls.

Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton tokenized its US Government Money Fund (FOBXX/BENJI) directly, without using a third-party tokenization platform. The fund uses blockchain as its official record of share ownership, making it one of the first major mutual funds to use a blockchain as its transfer agent ledger.

FOBXX is deployed on Stellar and Polygon. Shares are purchased through the Benji app or Franklin Templeton’s existing distribution channels. The blockchain serves as the share register, but the fund itself operates under standard 40 Act mutual fund regulations with traditional custody through the Bank of New York Mellon.

Trade-offs: Franklin Templeton controls the entire stack because it is the asset manager, the platform operator, and the distributor. This eliminates third-party platform risk but limits the model to firms large enough to build their own infrastructure. Limited DeFi composability by design, as the fund prioritizes regulatory compliance and institutional distribution over protocol integrations.

Tokenized wrapper / certificate

These platforms issue tokens that represent a claim on an underlying strategy or asset through a certificate, note, or similar wrapper. The token is not a direct fund share but a structured instrument that provides exposure to the underlying.

Midas

Midas issues tokenized certificates that provide exposure to underlying strategies. Products include mTBILL (US Treasury bills), mBASIS (basis trade strategy), and mF-ONE (Fasanara Capital private credit). The tokens are ERC-20 on Ethereum with the certificate structure providing the legal wrapper.

Midas products are actively used as DeFi collateral, particularly on Morpho. mF-ONE is one of the most heavily borrowed-against tokenized credit products, with significant utilization rates on its Morpho market. NAV pricing is provided through eOracle with product-specific update frequencies (daily for mTBILL, weekly for mF-ONE).

Trade-offs: The certificate wrapper provides flexibility and DeFi composability, but the holder’s claim is on the certificate issuer, not directly on the underlying asset. Redemption depends on the issuer honoring the certificate terms. High DeFi composability creates distribution advantages but also exposes the product to lending protocol dynamics, oracle lag, and leverage that the issuer does not control.

Backed

Backed issues tokenized securities under Swiss DLT Act regulations. Products are structured as tracker certificates that reference underlying assets including equities, ETFs, and bonds. Backed operates under FINMA oversight, and the tokens are recognized as ledger-based securities under Swiss law.

The Swiss regulatory framework gives Backed tokens a clearer legal status than many competitors. The tokens represent a claim on Backed AG, with the underlying assets held by a regulated custodian. Available on Ethereum and other EVM chains.

Trade-offs: Strong regulatory clarity within the Swiss framework, but jurisdictional limitations. The product is accessible primarily to non-US investors. Tracker certificate structure means the holder has counterparty exposure to Backed AG rather than direct ownership of the underlying.

Ondo Finance

Ondo issues tokenized exposure to US Treasuries (OUSG) and a yield-bearing stablecoin (USDY). OUSG provides institutional access to short-duration US government bonds through a tokenized fund structure. USDY is structured as a tokenized note that passes through treasury yield to holders.

Ondo has pursued multi-chain distribution aggressively, deploying across Ethereum, Solana, Mantle, Sui, Aptos, and other networks. The products have significant DeFi integrations, with USDY used as collateral across multiple lending protocols. Ondo has also announced Ondo Global Markets, designed to bring traditional securities onchain.

Trade-offs: Broad multi-chain presence creates distribution reach but multiplies bridge dependencies and attack surfaces. Different products use different legal structures (fund vs. note), which means the holder’s rights vary by product. Aggressive DeFi integration drives demand but creates composability risk the issuer must monitor.

Superstate

Superstate operates as a registered investment adviser issuing tokenized fund shares. Its initial product, USTB, is a short-duration US Treasury fund structured as a 40 Act fund with blockchain-native share classes. Superstate uses Ethereum as the primary chain with the blockchain serving as the share register.

Trade-offs: Regulated fund structure provides institutional credibility and clear investor rights. The 40 Act wrapper means standard mutual fund protections apply. Narrower composability profile compared to certificate or note structures, as fund shares carry more compliance constraints in DeFi environments.

DeFi-native credit

These platforms originate and manage credit directly through onchain protocols. The lending, borrowing, and in some cases underwriting happens onchain rather than being wrapped from an offchain portfolio.

Centrifuge

Centrifuge connects real-world asset originators to onchain capital through its Tinlake protocol and more recently through Centrifuge Chain. Asset originators tokenize pools of real-world receivables, invoices, or loans, and onchain investors provide capital through senior and junior tranches.

The tranching structure is a distinguishing feature. Senior tranche holders have priority on cash flows and are protected by the junior tranche acting as a first-loss buffer. This mirrors traditional structured finance mechanics but executes them through smart contracts. Centrifuge has been a primary source of real-world assets for MakerDAO and other DeFi protocols.

Trade-offs: Onchain tranching provides transparent risk allocation, but the underlying assets (invoices, receivables, loans) are offchain and depend on the originator’s underwriting quality and servicing capability. If the originator fails to collect, the smart contract cannot enforce the claim. The gap between onchain capital allocation and offchain asset performance is the primary risk.

Maple Finance

Maple operates an institutional credit marketplace where pool delegates (credit professionals) manage lending pools that provide undercollateralized loans to institutional borrowers. Borrowers include trading firms, market makers, and crypto-native businesses.

The delegate model is central to Maple’s structure. Pool delegates perform credit underwriting, set loan terms, and manage defaults. Lenders deposit capital into pools managed by delegates they trust. This creates a hybrid model: onchain capital management with offchain credit judgment.

Maple experienced significant defaults in 2022 when several borrowers (including Orthogonal Trading and Auros) defaulted on loans. The protocol has since restructured, introduced overcollateralized lending products, and shifted toward institutional-grade borrowers.

Trade-offs: The delegate model concentrates credit judgment in individuals or small teams. Lenders are exposed to the delegate’s underwriting quality, not just the borrower’s creditworthiness. Undercollateralized lending carries inherent default risk that the onchain infrastructure cannot eliminate. The 2022 defaults demonstrated that onchain settlement does not protect against offchain credit failure.

Goldfinch

Goldfinch provides onchain capital to offchain lending businesses, primarily in emerging markets. Borrowers are fintech lenders, credit funds, and financial institutions that use the capital for real-world lending. The protocol uses a two-tier model: backers (who evaluate individual pools) and the senior pool (which allocates capital across pools automatically).

Trade-offs: Goldfinch addresses a genuine capital gap in emerging market lending, but the distance between onchain capital providers and offchain borrowers is significant. Lenders depend on the borrower’s local underwriting and collection capability. Several pools have experienced defaults and restructurings. The protocol demonstrates both the potential and the limits of using onchain infrastructure to fund offchain credit.

Own-chain infrastructure

These platforms operate purpose-built blockchains designed specifically for tokenized financial products. Rather than deploying on general-purpose chains, they control the infrastructure layer.

Figure / Provenance

Figure Technologies built Provenance Blockchain specifically to support its HELOC tokenization business. Figure originates home equity lines of credit, tokenizes them on Provenance, and settles them through its own marketplace (Figure Connect). Figure went public on Nasdaq in 2025 and represents the largest single source of tokenized credit by volume ($17.6 billion in tokenized HELOCs).

Provenance uses a proof-of-stake consensus with a proprietary lien registry (DART) that serves as the system of record for loan ownership. The chain is designed for financial asset lifecycle management: origination, trading, settlement, and servicing.

Trade-offs: Vertical integration from origination through settlement gives Figure control over the entire product lifecycle. However, the Provenance ecosystem is relatively closed. Assets tokenized on Provenance do not have the composability of assets on Ethereum or other general-purpose chains. The trade-off is explicit: operational control and regulatory clarity in exchange for ecosystem reach.

Polymesh

Polymesh is a purpose-built blockchain for regulated securities, developed by the team behind Polymath. The chain embeds identity, compliance, and governance at the protocol level rather than implementing them as smart contract layers on top of a general-purpose chain.

Every participant on Polymesh has a verified onchain identity through a network of regulated customer due diligence providers. Transfer restrictions, corporate actions, and settlement finality are built into the base layer. This eliminates some of the compliance challenges that arise when deploying securities on general-purpose chains.

Trade-offs: Protocol-level compliance reduces friction for regulated securities but limits the network to participants willing to operate within its identity framework. Limited DeFi composability by design. Smaller ecosystem and lower liquidity compared to Ethereum. The bet is that regulated securities need purpose-built infrastructure rather than general-purpose chains, but adoption has been slower than general-purpose alternatives.

Middleware / white-label

These platforms provide tokenization infrastructure as a service, enabling other institutions to issue and manage tokenized products under their own brand.

Tokeny

Tokeny provides white-label tokenization infrastructure built around the ERC-3643 standard (formerly T-REX), which is designed specifically for permissioned tokens with embedded compliance. The platform enables institutions to issue, manage, and transfer tokenized securities with identity verification and transfer restrictions built into the token standard.

ERC-3643 uses onchain identity registries and compliance rules that are checked at the token level on every transfer. This means compliance is enforced by the token itself, not by the platform or a separate gatekeeper. Tokeny has been adopted by several European institutions and is one of the few tokenization platforms focused primarily on the infrastructure layer rather than issuing its own products.

Trade-offs: White-label infrastructure gives institutions control over their own product branding and distribution while using standardized compliance tooling. The trade-off is that the issuer takes on more responsibility for the operational stack (custody, distribution, investor management) since Tokeny provides the rails rather than the full service. Adoption of ERC-3643 outside Europe has been limited.

What this means for issuers

The platform choice is a product design decision, not just a technology selection. It determines:

  • What legal structure the product will use, and therefore what rights the holder has
  • Which investors can access the product, and through what channels
  • Whether the product can be used in DeFi, and what risks that creates
  • How much of the operational stack the issuer controls versus delegates to the platform
  • What happens if the issuer needs to migrate to a different platform

Full-stack platforms reduce operational burden but create platform dependency. Middleware solutions give issuers more control but require more internal capability. DeFi-native protocols offer composability but carry protocol-specific risks. Own-chain infrastructure provides maximum control but limits ecosystem reach.

There is no universally correct choice. The right platform depends on the product’s legal requirements, target investors, desired composability profile, and the issuer’s operational capacity.

What this means for allocators

When evaluating a tokenized product, the platform it is built on is not a background detail. It is a structural input.

  • Wrapper type determines what you own. A fund share, a certificate, and an LP position in a DeFi pool are different claims with different rights and different recourse.
  • Custody model determines counterparty exposure. Regulated third-party custody, platform-operated custody, and smart-contract custody carry different risks.
  • Redemption path determines whether you can exit. The difference between instant onchain redemption, weekly windows, and quarterly gates matters more than the quoted yield.
  • Platform dependency determines concentration risk. If the product, the compliance layer, the transfer agent, and the distribution channel all run through one platform, that is a single point of failure.

Two products with similar yield and similar underlying assets can have meaningfully different risk profiles depending on the infrastructure they are built on. The platform is not the product, but it shapes the product in ways that matter for allocation decisions.