The intelligence layer for fintech professionals who think for themselves.
Primary source intelligence. Original analysis. Contributed pieces from the people defining the industry.
Trusted by professionals at JP Morgan, Coinbase, BlackRock, Klarna and more.
Join the FinTech Weekly Clarity Circle →
The tokenization hearing ended Wednesday. The conclusion was not legislation. It was something more foundational: a bipartisan acknowledgement, on the record, that tokenized securities are no longer a question of whether but of when — and that the regulatory framework governing them does not yet exist.
As FinTech Weekly reported ahead of the session, the hearing arrived at a moment of unusual legislative convergence. The Senate Banking Committee markup of the CLARITY Act is targeted for the second half of April. The SEC and CFTC signed a joint coordination pact earlier this month.
The on-chain RWA market stood at $26.58 billion in distributed value going into the hearing, according to rwa.xyz data, up 5.58% in thirty days. Congress was not examining a hypothetical. It was examining a market already in motion.
The witnesses brought the full institutional weight the session required. Kenneth Bentsen Jr., President and CEO of SIFMA, represented the broker-dealers, investment banks, and asset managers whose infrastructure would need to absorb tokenized securities at scale. Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, carried the industry position central to the CLARITY Act negotiations. John Zecca of Nasdaq, Christian Sabella of the DTCC, and Salman Banaei, General Counsel of Kimber Labs — operator of the Plume blockchain — completed a panel that covered market infrastructure, legal architecture, and the distance between them.
What the Industry Told Congress
Mersinger's written testimony framed the stakes in terms that moved well beyond the crypto industry's standard arguments. Tokenization, she argued, is not a side conversation about digital assets. It is a conversation about how the next generation of US capital markets will function. The United States has historically led technological transitions in financial infrastructure — from open outcry to electronic trading, from paper records to digital clearing. Whether the next transition happens under US regulatory oversight or outside it depends on decisions Congress makes in the current session.
Her testimony identified three structural positions that carry direct implications for the CLARITY Act. Tokenized securities are still securities — the goal is to apply existing law in a way that reflects how blockchain-based infrastructure actually operates, not to circumvent it. On-chain systems that do not exert custody, control, or discretion over user assets warrant a different regulatory approach than frameworks built on traditional intermediary assumptions.
And the SEC already has the tools to support responsible progress through exemptive relief and iterative pathways it has used before — and should use now rather than waiting for a complete statutory framework that may take years to produce.
The urgency behind that argument is competitive. Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the European Union, and the United Arab Emirates are all offering grants, publishing frameworks, and launching live pilots to capture the infrastructure layer for global capital markets. The question Mersinger put to the committee was direct: will American capital markets infrastructure channel that demand, or will foreign competitors with different geopolitical objectives capture it?
The Structural Barriers Nobody Is Talking About
Banaei's written testimony was the most technically detailed of the session and identified legal and regulatory obstacles that received no public attention before Wednesday.
The most specific was TEFRA — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Written to prevent the issuance of bearer bonds, which were used to facilitate money laundering and tax evasion, TEFRA now inadvertently prohibits the issuance of tokenized bonds on any permissionless public blockchain where transfers occur between self-custodied wallets without involvement of a traditional book entry system.
Peer-to-peer token transfers are functionally indistinguishable from bearer bonds under TEFRA's current language. The penalties are severe: denial of interest deductions, excise taxes at issuance, reclassification of capital gains, and a 30% withholding tax on interest regardless of the investor's residence. The global bond market represents over $100 trillion in outstanding debt. The US accounts for approximately $58.2 trillion of that. America's competitors are racing to capture tokenized bond issuance. An unintended consequence of a 1982 tax law is one reason the US is falling behind.
Banaei identified six further structural barriers explaining why the RWA market expands at a measured 5-6% per month rather than the exponential trajectory some projections have suggested. Sixty-six percent of institutional investors cite regulatory uncertainty as a reason not to invest in digital assets, according to a January 2026 EY-Parthenon and Coinbase survey.
Basel capital surcharges apply a 1,250% risk weight to permissionless blockchain assets, rendering bank participation in public-chain tokenization commercially unviable without reform.
Stablecoin legislation, including in the US, remains in the implementation phase.
Liquidity fragmentation across chains creates 1-3% pricing gaps for identical assets and 2-5% friction when moving capital cross-chain. The macroeconomic rate environment has blunted the onchain value proposition — US money market funds returned 4.2-5.3% annually in 2023-2024 while base stablecoin lending rates clustered around 3-4%.
And the limited selection of yield-bearing tokenized assets reduces appeal to institutional investors who need the asset classes that dominate traditional portfolios.
These are not theoretical problems. They are the documented reasons why a market growing at nearly 80% annually is still measured in tens of billions rather than trillions.
The Legal Problem the Hearing Could Not Solve
The session produced consensus on the premise. It did not produce answers to the deeper structural questions underneath it.
Arthur Firstov, Chief Business Officer at Mercuryo, identified the central one: the Howey Test was not designed for instruments that function simultaneously as securities and payment rails.
A tokenized Treasury bond that settles in minutes on a public blockchain, generates yield through a DeFi protocol, and transfers across borders without a custodian does not map cleanly onto legal concepts written for a fundamentally different operational reality.
Wednesday established that Congress recognises the gap. Closing it requires statutory language the session was not designed to produce.
Less than one tenth of one percent of the world's assets are currently tokenised. The $26.7 billion figure confirmed by Banaei's testimony — drawn from rwa.xyz data as of March 22 — is significant precisely because it represents a fraction of the global capital market it is being asked to modernise.
McKinsey projects the tokenized financial asset market could reach $2 trillion in the base case and up to $4 trillion in the bull case by 2030. The gap between those numbers and today's figures is where the policy decisions made in the coming weeks will determine US leadership or absence.
That statutory gap belongs to the CLARITY Act. As FinTech Weekly has reported throughout the bill's Senate passage, the legislation would determine by statute whether a given tokenised asset is a digital security under SEC jurisdiction or a digital commodity under CFTC jurisdiction.
That single determination drives every subsequent question about registration, investor protection, and enforcement. Banaei's testimony explicitly supports the bill's Section 108, directing the SEC to modernise securities regulations for digital asset activities, and calls for the retention of Section 505, which codifies the foundational principle that a security issued or transferred on a distributed ledger remains a security under existing law.
The Political Dimension
Democratic members raised concerns that extended beyond the technical. Ranking member Maxine Waters brought the Trump family's crypto involvement directly into the room, citing an estimated $1 billion in profits from ventures including World Liberty Financial.
Anonymous wallets and the risks of masked foreign ownership, KYC compliance gaps, and the potential gamification of always-on tokenized markets were also flagged as conditions requiring resolution before any permissive framework advances.
The political dimension is not peripheral to the CLARITY Act timeline. The bill requires 60 Senate votes — which means meaningful Democratic support. If the Trump administration's personal crypto interests become a structural Democratic objection rather than a background concern, the ethics provisions still unresolved in the current draft become the leverage point determining whether a broad bipartisan vote is achievable.
There is an irony in Wednesday's political tension. Banaei's testimony documented that onchain law enforcement seizure rates approach 12% — far exceeding seizure rates in traditional finance, which the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has estimated at around 0.2%.
The blockchain's transparency, the very feature that makes crypto assets politically legible and politically contentious, is also what makes them more amenable to law enforcement than the financial system they are being asked to complement.
What Wednesday Actually Produced
Congress left without a framework. What it produced was more durable than a single piece of legislation: a formal, bipartisan, on-the-record acknowledgement that tokenized securities are coming, that the market is already moving, and that the regulatory architecture must follow.
For firms building in this space, that acknowledgement has operational weight. Two draft bills are on the table — one directing a joint SEC-CFTC study on tokenized derivatives, one codifying broker-dealers' ability to use blockchain for record-keeping.
Both are early measures. The iterative approach Mersinger called for from the SEC provides a pathway to act before the statutory framework is complete. Banaei's testimony provides the committee with a specific legislative roadmap across fixed income, public equities, asset management, and cross-cutting infrastructure that no prior congressional session has received in such structured form.
Editor's note: We are committed to accuracy. If you spot an error or have additional information about the tokenization hearing or related legislation, please email [email protected].
