What 150 Tokenisation Operators Actually Think - And What It Means for Founders

Centrifuge surveyed the people building and operating the tokenised asset market. The bottleneck is regulation, not technology. Investors care about liquidity and rights, not yield. And distribution matters more than the token itself. Here is what founders should take from it.

Most commentary on tokenisation is written by people with something to sell. An asset manager with a tokenised fund. A blockchain platform seeking issuers. A law firm positioning for advisory mandates. The reports they produce are not dishonest, but they are shaped by the perspective of the author — and that perspective tends to favour the narrative that the market is larger, the technology is more mature, and the adoption is more imminent than the evidence sometimes supports.

The Centrifuge Tokenisation Outlook 2026 is a different kind of document. Centrifuge is a DeFi-native platform - that framing matters, and we will return to it — but the survey it conducted drew responses from 150 operators across the full tokenisation stack: fund managers, technology providers, service firms, researchers, and DeFi builders. The people whose day-to-day decisions are actively shaping the market. And some of what they said cuts directly against the consensus. You can read the full report here.

This article does not attempt to summarise the full report. It filters the findings through the question that matters for this platform's audience: what does this mean for UK startup founders thinking about tokenised equity in 2026? Four data points in particular deserve close attention.

---

Centrifuge is a DeFi-native infrastructure platform. Some findings in its survey reflect a global, institutionally-focused, and crypto-adjacent market that differs from the UK startup equity context. Where the framing diverges from the TS audience's situation, we note it explicitly.

---

Why Operator Surveys Matter More Than Analyst Projections

The tokenisation market has no shortage of forecasts. Depending on which research house you read, the market for tokenised real-world assets will reach somewhere between $4 trillion and $30 trillion by the early 2030s. These figures are widely cited and essentially unverifiable, produced by extrapolating current growth rates across asset classes that have not yet been tokenised at scale, in regulatory environments that do not yet fully exist.

Operator surveys are a more grounded form of intelligence. They capture what people who are actively building, distributing, and investing in tokenised assets believe right now — not what a model suggests might happen a decade from now. The gap between those two perspectives is often significant, and the gap is where the useful signal lives.

The Centrifuge survey is not a large sample by the standards of academic research, and it carries the biases of its respondent pool — operators who are already engaged with the market, not those who have decided it is not yet ready for them. But within those limits, it is a more honest read on the state of the industry than most of what is published, precisely because the respondents have no incentive to project confidence they do not feel.

The most useful question to ask of any market intelligence is not what it says about the upside — it is what it reveals about the constraints.

The Bottleneck Is Not Technical - It Is Regulatory

44% of operators cite regulation and compliance as the main constraint to scaling tokenisation.  Technology ranked a distant third at 8%.

This finding matters for founders because it validates something that TS has argued consistently: the technology of tokenisation is not the hard part. Creating a token that represents shares in your company is well within reach for any founder willing to invest the time and choose the right platform. The harder questions are what surrounds the token — who promotes it, who holds it in custody, who brings investors to the table, and whether all of those activities are carried out under the appropriate regulatory permissions.

The operators in this survey are, by definition, people who have engaged with those questions. Forty-four per cent of them still identify regulation and compliance as the primary constraint to growing their businesses. Not a lack of investor appetite. Not immature technology. Not insufficient product range. Regulation.

The second-ranked constraint — liquidity, at 32% — is also instructive. Liquidity is partly a regulatory problem: the ability to create a secondary market for tokenised equity depends on platforms holding the right permissions, on investors being willing to trade, and on the legal framework being sufficiently clear that counterparties feel confident in the transaction. The PISCES framework and the tokenised deposit pilot both address parts of this problem. Neither resolves it entirely.

For founders, the practical implication is direct: when evaluating a tokenisation platform, the most important question is not whether its technology works. It is whether its regulatory infrastructure is complete. Does it hold the FCA permissions it needs to carry out the activities it claims to offer? Has it been through the authorisation process, or does it rely on exemptions and third-party arrangements that could create gaps? The operators who understand the constraint most clearly are the ones who take those questions seriously.

So What Do Tokenisation Operators Actually Think?

67% say reliable liquidity and redemption is the top driver of investor confidence.  Clear investor rights came second at 57%. Competitive yield ranked third at 43%.

This finding cuts against a narrative that is common in tokenisation marketing: that the headline benefit is yield, and that investors are attracted to tokenised assets primarily because of the returns they offer. The operators surveyed disagree. Yield attracts attention.

What builds confidence is something more fundamental: the ability to get your money back when you want it, and the knowledge that your rights as an investor are clearly defined and enforceable.

For founders raising tokenised equity, this is a direct briefing on what their investors will want to hear. The question an investor is asking — consciously or not — is not primarily what is the return? It is: if I need to exit, can I? And if something goes wrong, do I have recourse?

The liquidity question connects to the distribution and secondary market infrastructure being built across the UK right now: PISCES for conventional private shares, tokenised deposit rails for settlement, and the FCA's Digital Securities Sandbox for testing new models. The rights question connects to the legal framework — the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, the UKJT's report on control, and the contractual documentation that surrounds a tokenised equity structure.

Yield is the hook. Rights and liquidity are the reason investors stay. Founders who understand that distinction will build more compelling investor propositions.

The operational reliability finding — 27% — is worth noting separately. Investors who have been in the digital assets space long enough have seen platforms fail, custody arrangements prove inadequate, and smart contracts behave unexpectedly. The market has a memory. For a founder choosing a tokenisation platform, the question of operational reliability is not just a technical due diligence item; it is part of what you are implicitly promising your investors when you bring them onto a given platform.

Distribution Matters More Than the Token: What This Really Means

86% of operators say new distribution matters more than launching new tokenised products.  52% say both matter, but distribution comes first.

This is the most actionable finding in the survey for founders, and it requires some unpacking — because the word distribution is used differently in tokenisation than in everyday business conversation.

In the context of tokenised assets, distribution does not mean marketing or brand awareness. It means the regulated activity of connecting a tokenised investment opportunity to the eligible investors who can participate in it. It means the platform or intermediary that holds the legal permissions to make that connection, that has a verified base of investors ready to deploy capital, and that can conduct the compliance and onboarding checks that allow a transaction to proceed.

Creating a token is the beginning of the process, not the end of it. The token represents an opportunity. Distribution is the infrastructure that turns that opportunity into a completed investment. And the survey finding — that 86% of operators prioritise reaching new distribution channels over launching new tokenised products — reflects a market-level observation: there are already more tokenised instruments in existence than there are efficient, regulated routes to put them in front of qualified investors.

The question	The answer
What does a tokenisation platform actually distribute?	The opportunity to invest in a tokenised asset — whether that is equity, debt, real estate, or another instrument. Distribution means connecting that opportunity to investors who are eligible, verified, and ready to commit capital.
Who counts as a distribution channel?	Regulated platforms with existing investor bases; wealth managers and family offices that can direct client capital; institutional allocators such as pension funds and venture firms; and, in some structures, secondary market venues where tokens can later be traded. Each channel brings different investor types, minimum ticket sizes, and regulatory requirements.
Why does distribution matter more than the token itself?	Creating a token is technically straightforward. Getting investors to the other side of the transaction is where the real work, and regulatory risk — lives. A perfectly structured tokenised equity raise with no distribution channel is simply equity that nobody has bought. The platform that holds the regulated permissions to bring investors to the table is the platform that makes the raise possible.
What should founders ask a platform about distribution?	How many verified investors do you have on your platform? What categories of investor can participate in this type of offer? Do you have relationships with wealth managers or institutional allocators who might co-invest? And critically: do you hold the FCA permissions to conduct the distribution activity, or do you rely on a third party for that?
How does this connect to the 86% finding?	When 86% of operators say distribution matters more than launching new tokenised products, they are making a market-level observation: the industry has more tokenised instruments than it has efficient routes to put them in front of eligible investors. For founders, this means that platform selection should weight distribution capability as heavily as technical features or fee structures.

For founders, the practical implication is this: when you evaluate a tokenisation platform, ask specifically about its distribution capability. Not its technology. Not its fee structure. Its distribution. How many verified, eligible investors does it have access to? Through what channels does it reach them — its own platform, relationships with wealth managers, connections to institutional allocators? Does it hold all the FCA permissions necessary to conduct distribution activity itself, or does it rely on third parties for parts of the chain?

The answer to those questions matters more than almost anything else about the platform. A tokenised equity raise on a platform with weak distribution is a raise that will struggle to close, regardless of how well the token is structured. It is worth knowing if for example, FSMA regulation relating to promotions is going to limit the ability of the platform to 'promote' the offering to investors, It will mean the burden will be in the founders - which may be fine if pre-warned.

The 2027 Outlook: The Window Founders Are Operating In

50% of operators expect onchain AUM to reach $150–500bn by 2027.  A further 14% expect $500bn to $1tn. Only 3% expect under $50bn.

The scale projections in the survey should be interpreted with appropriate caution. When it comes to what tokenisation operators actually think, the respondent pool is composed of people who are already operating in the tokenised asset market — their expectations are likely to be systematically more optimistic than those of a broader cross-section of financial market participants. And the $150–500 billion range is wide enough to accommodate a very significant range of outcomes.

What is more useful than the specific numbers is the direction and the degree of consensus. Almost all operators expect the market to grow substantially by 2027. Very few expect stagnation or contraction. The disagreement is about magnitude, not direction.

For founders, this has a practical implication about timing. The tokenised asset market is moving from early adoption into something closer to institutional normalisation — not mainstream, but no longer experimental. The regulatory infrastructure is being built in parallel: the FCA's crypto-asset authorisation regime opens in September 2026 and comes into force in October 2027; the digital gilt programme is underway; the UK Finance tokenised deposit pilot runs until mid-2026. Founders who engage with tokenised equity now — properly structured, with the right platform, under appropriate regulatory guidance — are entering a market that is maturing around them, not one they have to wait for.

The asset classes expected to dominate onchain markets by 2030 - money market instruments and stocks rated highest by operators in the survey, followed by ETFs, commodities, and private credit — include equities. Private company equity sits within that category. The expectation is not that tokenised equity will be a niche instrument a decade from now; it is that it will be part of a broader onchain capital market that processes a significantly larger share of global investment activity than it does today.

What the Survey Does Not Say - and Why That Matters

Centrifuge Tokenisation Outlook Report

Centrifuge is a DeFi-native platform. Its respondent pool includes DeFi builders, onchain money market operators, and infrastructure providers whose frame of reference is a global, blockchain-native market that looks quite different from the regulated UK equity environment that most TS readers are operating in.

Several of the survey's distribution channel findings reflect this. DeFi lending and money markets ranking as the second-most-anticipated distribution channel (at 17%, alongside trading venues) is not relevant to a UK startup founder raising equity through a regulated tokenisation platform. Stablecoin and payments rails as a significant channel (15%) similarly reflects a crypto-adjacent market context rather than a mainstream UK equity raise.

The findings that translate clearly to the TS audience are the ones about constraints, investor confidence drivers, and the primacy of distribution. Those findings are framed around problems that apply regardless of whether you are operating in a DeFi context or a regulated UK private markets context. The technology stack differs; the underlying dynamics do not.

This matters because founders evaluating the tokenisation market should seek out intelligence that is relevant to their specific situation, not just to the market in aggregate. A finding that 17% of global operators expect DeFi lending to become a major distribution channel is interesting. It is not a data point that should influence how a UK seed-stage founder structures their equity raise.

The Takeaway

The Centrifuge Tokenisation Outlook 2026 is one of the more honest pieces of market intelligence published in this space this year, precisely because it surfaces the constraints as clearly as the opportunities. The bottleneck is regulation. Investors need liquidity and clear rights before they need yield. Distribution infrastructure matters more than product innovation. And the market is expected to grow substantially — but from a base that is still concentrated, still institutionally dominated, and still working through the foundational questions of legal framework and regulatory perimeter.

For UK founders thinking about tokenised equity, those findings are not discouraging. They are clarifying. The regulatory framework in the UK is among the most developed in the world for this asset class. The infrastructure being built — across banking, secondary markets, and legal doctrine — is directly relevant to how tokenised equity will function. And the distribution question, which operators identify as the most pressing challenge in the market, is one that founders can address through deliberate platform selection rather than waiting for the market to solve it.

The operators who built this market have been clearer-eyed about its constraints than most of the commentary that surrounds it. Founders who read their findings the same way — not for confirmation that tokenisation is inevitable, but for guidance on where the real work lies — will be better prepared for what it actually takes to use it well.

Key takeaways for founders

• The bottleneck is regulation, not technology. 44% of operators cite regulation and compliance as the primary constraint to scaling tokenisation. When evaluating a platform, the first question is whether its regulatory infrastructure is complete — not whether its technology works.

  
  

• Investors care about liquidity and rights before yield. 67% of operators identify reliable liquidity and redemption as the top driver of investor confidence; 57% cite clear investor rights. Competitive yield ranked third. Structure your investor proposition around exit routes and enforceable rights, not headline returns.

  
  

• Distribution is the most important thing a platform does. Creating the token is not the hard part. Getting eligible, verified investors to the other side of the transaction is. 86% of operators say reaching new distribution channels matters more than launching new tokenised products. Ask any platform you evaluate: who are your investors, and how do you reach them?

  
  

• The market is growing — but concentration remains. Half of operators expect onchain AUM to reach $150–500bn by 2027. Today's market is still dominated by institutional instruments. The direction is clear; the pace is not yet certain.

  
  

• Filter market intelligence for your context. Some of the Centrifuge findings reflect a global, DeFi-native market. The findings on constraints, investor confidence, and distribution apply directly to UK founder situations. The findings on DeFi lending and stablecoin rails as distribution channels do not.

  
  

• The window is open — but readiness matters. The FCA's crypto-asset authorisation regime opens in September 2026. The UK is building the infrastructure for tokenised finance in real time. Founders who engage now, properly structured, will enter a market that is maturing around them.

Source: Centrifuge, Tokenisation Outlook 2026 — an operator survey of 150 participants across issuance, distribution, liquidity, and infrastructure. Produced for the Real-World Asset Summit. The findings referenced in this article reflect respondents' views and do not constitute investment or legal advice. For specialist guidance on tokenised equity in the UK, visit Edwin Coe LLP.

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The regulatory treatment of tokenised assets and digital securities varies by jurisdiction and continues to evolve. Readers should seek independent professional advice before making any financial, legal, or regulatory decisions.

TokenisingStartups.com  ·  Published by Two Chairs Consulting Limited