Services · Tokenization

Asset tokenization infrastructure

Turning a real-world asset into a token is the easy part. Making the resulting instrument defensible to a regulator, an auditor, and an investor is the work.

The problem

Tokenizing property, gold, or receivables raises questions that the technology alone does not answer. Who holds legal title, and what does the token holder actually acquire. How ownership is evidenced when the asset is physical and the record is digital. How transfers are restricted to eligible holders across jurisdictions. What reporting the issuer will owe every month for the life of the instrument, and who produces it.

Projects that treat these as post-launch concerns tend to discover them during a licensing review, when changing the architecture is expensive.

What we build

  • Permissioned token implementations including ERC-3643, where identity and eligibility are enforced by the contract rather than by procedure
  • Ownership registries reconciled against custodian records, land registries, or depository data
  • Transfer restriction engines — jurisdiction limits, holder caps, lock-up periods, whitelists
  • Investor onboarding flows with KYC and AML provider integration
  • Reporting layers built to the formats supervisors expect, generated rather than assembled
  • Shariah-structure configuration aligned to AAOIFI standards, where required
  • Evidence linkage for allocation and custody, so that a claim of backing can be substantiated on request

How we work

We begin with the instrument, not the token. What is being sold, under what licence, to whom, with what rights on redemption — and what the issuer must be able to prove at any point afterwards. The token is the last design decision, not the first.

Where the asset is physical, we design the evidence chain alongside the token: allocation records, custodian confirmations, and inspection documentation. A token whose backing cannot be demonstrated is a liability regardless of how well the contract is written.

Regulatory context

Pakistan's Virtual Assets Act 2026 and the associated PVARA framework, SECP requirements for security-like instruments, and the UAE's VARA regime for asset-referenced tokens. Where an instrument must satisfy Shariah requirements, we build to AAOIFI standards — including the allocation and possession requirements that apply to gold-backed instruments under Standard No. 57.

Common questions

Which token standard should we use?

For regulated issuance, permissioned standards such as ERC-3643 are usually appropriate because eligibility is enforced at the contract level. The correct answer depends on your investor base, jurisdictions, and secondary-market intentions.

Do you handle the licensing?

No. Licensing is legal and regulatory work, and it belongs with counsel. We build to the requirements the licence imposes, and we are comfortable working directly alongside your legal advisers.

Who verifies that the underlying asset exists?

Independent third parties — inspection firms, surveyors, chartered accountants — acting in their own name under their own professional licences. We build the systems that record and reconcile their work. We do not verify assets ourselves.

Can this work for Shariah-compliant instruments?

Yes, and the structural requirements are specific. AAOIFI Standard No. 57 requires gold to be fully allocated and possessed rather than held as a pooled claim. We build the allocation evidence into the record so the structure can be demonstrated, not merely asserted.

Contact

Tell us what you're building

Whether it's a product that needs engineering, a compliance system that has to satisfy a regulator, or an asset you're considering tokenizing — we're glad to talk it through before anyone commits to anything.

info@bluelift.ai