As one of the foremost offshore financial centres, home to approximately 70% of the world’s offshore investment funds and with an absence of any direct taxation on companies or individuals, the Cayman Islands has become an attractive destination for technology entrepreneurs. While much of Cayman’s financial services legislation was written before the recent blockchain revolution began, the last few years have seen the Cayman Islands take a number of legal and regulatory steps to make the Islands a jurisdiction that will allow such innovation to thrive. Cayman’s ambition to become a global technology hub is also supported by a sound legal framework, a wealth of experienced professional service providers, a modern infrastructure, state-of-the-art communication systems and a stable political climate.
Cayman’s flexible business-orientated legislation, multitude of potential issuer vehicle types, and internationally recognised securities regulatory regime enabled the Islands to pivot away from retail crowdfunded models towards security tokens and stablecoins, which provided greater value stability and more predictable investment returns. This same flexibility means that Cayman remains well placed to take advantage of the latest shift towards securitising common assets and decentralised finance (DeFi) products with Cayman already being the offshore centre of choice for other securitisation issuers.
Framework legislation regulating virtual asset service providers came into force in 2020 (see 2.2 Categorisation) and has attracted a number of new entrants to the Cayman market. A technology-neutral regulatory sandbox is still awaited but when introduced it is hoped this will further attract companies operating in this fast-moving sector to establish themselves in Cayman.
Recent years have also seen Cayman’s foundation company becoming a popular choice for projects looking for a flexible governance entity for their decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) or other community-led projects.
First amongst the leading offshore jurisdictions, Cayman established a technology park within its existing special economic zone (SEZ) to allow technology companies to benefit from specific advantages, including zero-taxes and fast-tracked work permit applications for relocating employees.
The pressures created by the COVID-19 outbreak on global trade systems highlighted the urgent need to maintain and strengthen the resilience of international supply chains. This resilience depends on trust, transparency and integrity, which can be improved through the responsible deployment of blockchain technologies. With applications to join the technology park within the SEZ at an all-time high, it is anticipated that Cayman will continue to benefit from technology companies looking to respond to this shift and establish themselves in a tax neutral jurisdiction.
Increased pressure from proposed EU tax and regulatory reforms are likely to impact Cayman’s current flexibility in this space going forward. In particular, further changes to the economic substance requirements introduced in Cayman in 2019 could have an impact. However, Cayman is already benefiting from the regulatory uncertainty in the virtual assets sector in the USA which has seen a number of US projects relocate offshore. Cayman is geographically advantaged being in the same time zone as the USA.
New technologies have not yet displaced traditional financial service providers in Cayman. Cayman Finance, a group that represents Cayman’s financial services sector, has established an innovation lab to engage with the financial services industry, regulators, the government and the media to promote the development and use of new technologies in the Islands.
Given Cayman’s stringent know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, a number of service providers have adopted technologies to enable the onboarding of clients and the collection of KYC information digitally.
Informal conversations have also started concerning a potential framework of laws, developed under Cayman Finance and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) that might direct new technologies towards the institutional market.
Tokenised funds have proved increasingly popular in recent years. In a tokenised fund, an investor’s interest is represented by a cryptographic token, as opposed to shares or other interests or units offered to investors in a more traditional fund structure.
There is no clear case law in this area yet. Practically, ownership of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and tokens, is principally determined by the control over the private cryptographic key. Control of this key is may therefore indicate ownership, as it empowers the holder to execute transactions on the blockchain. These transactions are recorded and verified on a decentralised ledger, which is a core component of blockchain technology.
The Virtual Assets (Service Providers) Act (the VASP Act) came into force in 2020. Transfers of digital assets via a blockchain network are likely to be deemed final when they are confirmed by the network. This confirmation occurs once a transaction has been included in a block, which is then appended to the blockchain following the consensus protocol specific to that blockchain. The VASP Act complements this process by establishing a regulatory oversight that ensures such transactions are conducted within a framework that promotes transparency, security and compliance with international standards.
This regulation under the VASP Act plays a critical role in enhancing the trustworthiness and legal robustness of the finality of transactions. By ensuring that virtual asset service providers comply with rigorous security protocols and transaction verification processes, the VASP Act should help solidify the immutability and irrevocability of transactions, which are hallmark features of blockchain technology.
The VASP Act is intended to provide a flexible framework to promote the use of new technology and innovative enterprise in the Cayman Islands while complying with newly adopted international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The new legislation provides for the supervision of persons and entities facilitating virtual asset activities as a business. A public consultation on the introduction of phase two of the VASP Act concluded in April 2024. When phase two comes into effect (date still awaited), as well as registering with CIMA, virtual asset custodians and exchange or trading platforms will also need to apply to CIMA for a separate VASP licence.
Under the VASP Act a “virtual asset” is defined as a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and used for payment or investment purposes, but does not include digital representations of fiat currencies.
“Virtual asset services” are businesses providing one or more of the following services or operations:
Under the VASP Act, from 31 October 2020, all virtual asset service providers (VASPs) need to apply to register with CIMA.
The VASP Act provides for various exceptions including:
Under the VASP Act, VASPs are subject to a number of general obligations including:
The VASP Act also provides a framework for a technology-neutral regulatory sandbox. A date for the introduction of the sandbox is still awaited.
The primary piece of legislation regulating securities and investment business in the Cayman Islands is the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA). SIBA provides for the licensing and control of persons engaged in securities investment business in or from the Cayman Islands. Importantly, SIBA is essentially consumer protection legislation, designed to protect the investing public and to be construed broadly. When determining whether a business activity is caught by SIBA, therefore, the emphasis is on substance rather than form.
SIBA sets out an exhaustive list of financial instruments that constitute “securities”. SIBA has been amended to include virtual assets in that list. A virtual asset that can be sold, traded or exchanged and that represents, can be converted into or is a derivative of any of the existing SIBA-listed securities will also qualify as a security although certain exemptions may still apply.
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation and 2.3Tokenised Securities.
The FATF in its most recent Guidance made clear that NFTs are generally not considered to be virtual assets under the FATF definition. This is on the basis that NFTs are not used for payment or investment purposes and therefore would not meet the definition of a “virtual asset” under the VASP Act. However, as with all tokens, each project will turn on its own facts and so consideration should be given to the qualities of each NFT before a determination is made.
Yes. The VASP Act does not restrict the use of use of virtual assets for payment for services in the Cayman Islands. Many corporate and financial services providers now accept payments in a range of virtual assets. There is a growing trend in the Cayman Islands for real estate to be purchased using BTC and other virtual assets.
The use of digital assets as collateral in financial transactions is a developing area of law in the Cayman Islands. The practical implementation of such arrangements requires clear legal agreements that address issues such as the custody, control, and valuation of digital assets, as well as the rights of parties in the event of default.
There are also regulatory considerations concerning the custody and control of digital assets, particularly under securities and investment laws, which may impact their use as collateral. Parties utilising digital assets in collateral arrangements must ensure that these arrangements are structured to comply with existing laws and regulations concerning securities and other financial instruments.
There are no laws, regulations or Cayman judicial decisions addressing the enforceability of smart contracts.
Provided that the defining features of a contract are present – offer, acceptance, the intention to be legally bound and consideration – the authors’ view is that smart contracts are capable of satisfying the requirements for a binding contract and are enforceable by the Cayman courts.
Arguably the role of contractual interpretation for smart contracts written wholly in computer code may be limited as the language (in this case code) will typically be clear and unambiguous, although issues may arise where the code is ill-defined.
The Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) puts electronic signatures on an equal footing with wet ink signatures in the Cayman Islands.
Technologically neutral, the ETA was established to promote public confidence in the validity, integrity and reliability of conducting transactions electronically and recognises electronic records as records created, stored, generated, received or communicated by electronic means.
The ETA is not prescriptive as to the method of authentication protocol used. An electronic signature will be considered to be reliable where:
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation, which explains the VASP Act.
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation and 2.3 Tokenised Securities.
There are currently no restrictions on the use of mining, however, given the high utility costs on the Islands, large-scale mining from within the Cayman Islands would likely not be viable. Cayman does however remain an attractive jurisdiction for mining groups to base their headquarters, with their substantive mining operations based overseas.
There are currently no restrictions on the staking of tokens.
Cayman is proving a popular choice for projects wishing to use a legal wrapper for their decentralised and community-driven projects. Combining the limited liability protections of a corporate entity with the flexibility of a trust, the Cayman foundation company provides DAO projects with a very user-friendly option. For projects looking to issue virtual assets privately, the foundation company is also able to represent the DAO. The VASP Act regulates the sale of virtual assets to the public. Private sales which are not advertised, and made available to a limited number of persons who are each selected prior to the sale by way of a private agreement, are outside of scope.
Projects that wish to decentralise immediately by carrying out an airdrop of tokens can also utilise a Cayman foundation company. The VASP Act is concerned with “sales” of virtual assets in return for a cash or other crypto payment.
Where the DAO wishes to carry on VASP activities, one alternative is to create a wholly owned subsidiary of the foundation company in a virtual asset-friendly jurisdiction. The Cayman foundation company will then procure the subsidiary to carry on whichever activities it cannot perform from the Cayman Islands. Whilst this structure is more complex it allows projects to take full advantage of the benefits of the foundation company vehicle in a way that ensures compliance with the VASP Act.
DAO projects using Cayman structures have adopted a range of governance models with both “one token, one vote” and weighted vote arrangements proving popular.
Cayman vehicles typically provide a legal wrapper for the community voting arrangements but also act as service providers to carry out the instructions of the token-holders following a vote.
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation.
The Cayman Islands has long been committed to implementing best international practices and is compliant with the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements of the OECD and FATF. As a member of the Caribbean FATF, the Cayman Islands implements recommendations promulgated by the FATF.
All Cayman Islands-incorporated entities are subject to the Proceeds of Crime Act which sets out the principal money laundering offences.
Certain “relevant” businesses (which would include, for instance, entities caught within Cayman financial services regulations (including VASPs and those registered or licensed under SIBA) and other entities thought to be at a higher risk of money laundering) are further subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations which prescribe certain identification, record keeping and internal control procedures for such businesses.
Importantly, businesses in the Cayman Islands need to adopt a risk-based approach to the collection of know-your-client (KYC) information. Under the risk-based approach, the latest guidelines from the FATF permit the digital verification of identities and receipt of electronic copies of documents instead of traditional “wet ink” paper-based processes.
Virtual asset providers are regulated within the Cayman Islands under the VASP Act as virtual asset service providers (see 2.2 Categorisation). As part of the registration process, registrants must submit details of their business.
A VASP registrant must notify CIMA within fifteen days of any changes to the information provided as part of their registration, including all changes of control and ownership of that entity.
In addition to the above, no shares totalling ten per cent or more of the total shares in the VASP registrant shall be issued, and no issued shares or interests shall be voluntarily transferred or disposed of, without the prior approval of CIMA.
Specific resolution or insolvency regimes for digital asset firms do not exist separately in the Cayman Islands. Firms dealing with digital assets are subject to the same resolution and insolvency frameworks that apply to other commercial entities under the Companies Act and the Companies Winding Up Rules.
However, the nature of digital assets poses challenges in insolvency scenarios, particularly concerning the identification, valuation, and distribution of digital assets. This is, of course, not unique to the Cayman Islands, and the benefit of its common law system is that it can draw on jurisprudence from a range of other jurisdictions as required.
Virtual Assets Service Providers are subject to a number of rules and regulatory requirements including enforceable Rules and other Statements of Guidance in respect of: (i) Consolidated supervision; (ii) outsourcing; (iii) business conduct; (iv) corporate governance (including the fitness and propriety of the controllers and owners); (v) record retention; (vi) cybersecurity; (vii) reporting to CIMA.
There are no restrictions on the types of assets in which a Cayman Islands fund may invest, including digital assets. However, the VASP Act would need to be considered when structuring a Cayman Islands fund to ensure compliance in all respects.
A fund could potentially trigger the VASP Act requiring registration or licensing under such Act if it provides virtual asset services which fall outside traditional fund activities. “Virtual asset services” include the issuance of virtual assets, custody of virtual assets or the transfer/exchange of virtual assets for or on behalf of others. The VASP Act defines virtual assets as “a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded or transferred and can be used for payment or investment purposes but does not include a digital representation of fiat currencies”. This wide definition captures all cryptocurrencies, security tokens, utility tokens or other digital assets that are tradeable or transferable, with the exception of digital fiat currencies.
A technology neutral regulatory sandbox forms part of the VASP Act but its introduction is still awaited. The aim of the sandbox is to encourage, foster and incubate companies operating in this fast-moving sector. CIMA will have regulatory oversight of sandbox participants. Please see 2.1 Regulatory Overview for further discussion.
The Cayman Islands government has already established the SEZ, which enables technology companies from outside Cayman to easily and cost-effectively set up and operate in the Islands with a genuine physical presence.
The benefits of being a resident in the SEZ include:
Please refer to 2.2 Categorisation and 4.1.4 Anti-money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Requirements.
The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is the primary regulator of the Cayman Island's financial services industry responsible for the supervision of regulated entities operating in and from the jurisdiction. As part of this role CIMA provides oversight for investment funds and entities caught by SIBA as well as overseeing the VASP Act.
The Blockchain Association of the Cayman Islands was established to promote the use of blockchain-based solutions in the Cayman Islands, to facilitate collaboration in the space and to lobby to the government and regulators.
Cayman Finance, a group that represents Cayman’s financial services sector, has established an innovation lab to engage with the financial services industry, regulators, the government and the media to promote the development and use of new technologies in the Islands.
To date, there have been no significant judicial decisions in the Cayman Islands that directly define the legal regime applicable to the use of blockchain technology. As the blockchain sector continues to evolve, this therefore remains an untested area within the jurisdiction’s courts. However, it is anticipated that future cases will provide further clarification and possibly align with principles established in similar common law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales.
Regarding the treatment of blockchain developers and the imposition of fiduciary duties, it is the authors' opinion that developers, typically, are not fiduciaries. This view is based on the understanding that the role of developers in the governance of public blockchain networks generally does not involve the management of third-party assets or rights traditionally associated with fiduciary responsibilities. Instead, their role is more technical, and does not inherently carry the risks of abuse characteristic of traditional fiduciaries.
On the question of whether digital assets are considered “property,” the Cayman Islands have yet to produce case law directly addressing this issue. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that the courts might look favourably upon precedents set in the UK, particularly considering the findings of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (a government-backed group tasked with promoting the use of English law and the UK jurisdiction for technology and digital innovation), which affirm the property status of digital assets. This alignment would imply that digital assets can be subject to security interests such as fixed or floating charges, and appropriate measures, such as taking custody of digital keys, would be advisable to secure these charges effectively.
As for security over tokens representing equity interests (such as shares) in Cayman entities, it is the author’s view that security should additionally be taken over the underlying equity interests according to local practices, such as by way of equitable share mortgages or charges.
Currently, there is no public central registry in the Cayman Islands for registering security interests, but internal registries must be maintained by entities at their registered offices.
In conclusion, while specific judicial guidance on blockchain remains forthcoming, the legal principles applied to emerging technologies are likely to be informed by established common law practices and influenced by developments in comparable legal systems such as that of the UK. No ongoing litigation in the Cayman Islands is specifically expected to impact the blockchain sector imminently, but this is an area of potential development as the technology and its applications continue to expand.
Presently, specific enforcement actions in the Cayman Islands within the realm of blockchain and digital assets are somewhat limited, reflecting the relatively nascent nature of this regulatory field. However, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), which plays a pivotal role in the oversight and regulation of financial services, has engaged in certain regulatory activities that help clarify the “regulatory perimeter” for blockchain-related operations. This includes assisting with bringing into force the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act, and issuing public warnings regarding unregistered or non-compliant platforms possibly operating within the jurisdiction (please see this link, and also this July 2021 news release).These actions help market participants understand the boundaries of legal and illegal activities concerning blockchain and digital assets. By clarifying these boundaries, the Cayman Islands supports a transparent and secure environment for technological innovation while ensuring compliance with international financial regulatory standards.
The Cayman Islands is a tax-neutral jurisdiction. There is no income tax, wealth tax, profits tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, social security contribution (aside from mandatory pension contributions for employers and their employees) or corporate tax. A registered Cayman Islands entity is not subject to any direct taxes. There may, however, be tax implications for beneficial owners in their own jurisdiction.
CIMA has not produced any specific guidance in respect of ESG/sustainable finance requirements, but has recognised the importance of ESG considerations and as part of its supervisory mandate.
In a statement issued on 13 April 2023, CIMA stated that it will continue to undertake reviews, including assessing available information, such as best practices undertaken in other key financial jurisdictions, with the aim of developing a suitable regulatory and supervisory approach for climate related risks and other ESG-related risks.
The Cayman Islands Data Protection Act (DPA) came into full force in 2019. Drafted around a set of EU-style data protection principles to which data controllers must adhere, personal data must be collected in a fair and transparent manner and only be used and disclosed for purposes properly understood and agreed to by data subjects. Any personal data collected must be adequate, kept up to date, and not retained for longer than is necessary to fulfil the collection purpose.
The DPA introduces globally recognised principles about the use of personal data to the Cayman Islands. The DPA aligns the Cayman Islands with other major jurisdictions around the world, notably the EU, and thereby facilitates the free flow of data – a prerequisite for the Cayman Islands being an equal and competitive participant in today’s globalised economy.
Importantly, the DPA provides a standard framework for both public and private entities in the management of the personal data they use. Internationally active organisations will find many similarities between the data protection law of the Cayman Islands and those of other jurisdictions where they are active. The DPA aims to reduce the administrative burden of operating internationally and cement the Cayman Islands as an attractive jurisdiction in line with international developments.
The DPA also serves as a guide to provide assurance to individuals whose personal data is being processed. Indeed, where individuals feel that they are empowered to manage and control their personal data, they are more likely to share personal data with an organisation, to the benefit of both parties.
The Office of the Ombudsman is the Cayman Islands’ supervisory authority for data protection.
60 Nexus Way
George Town
Cayman Islands
KY1-1104
+1 345 949 4900
cayman@applebyglobal.com www.applebyglobal.comTokenisation, The Word on Everyone’s Lips
Over the past 15 years, the crypto sector has seen cycles of euphoria and despair, with 2022 marking the low point of the latest downturn. In 2024, there has been a significant resurgence, with various cryptocurrencies reaching new highs. Amid this renewed enthusiasm, investors and entrepreneurs are investing resources to develop the infrastructure and applications necessary for the next wave of widespread adoption, underscoring a firm belief in the transformative potential of the technology. In 2024, the tokenisation of real-world assets (RWAs) has seen substantial growth, with major financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, UBS, HSBC and BlackRock actively pursuing tangible execution. Tokenised investment funds, tokenised real estate portfolios and tokenised note issuances are all being discussed, marketed and launched in the Cayman Islands. According to a recent report, the market for tokenised assets could reach USD10 trillion by 2030 as traditional financial institutions increasingly adopt blockchain technology. But what does it actually mean? What is the point of it all? And what would it involve?
Purpose of Tokenisation
There are different objectives to, and varying degrees of, tokenisation. However, a consistent theme is that it involves representing offline assets on a blockchain which provide its owners or holders with legally enforceable rights, privileges and/or entitlements that give access to, or which provide benefits that mirror, or are closely linked to, ownership of the offline asset. This process converts both tangible assets – such as real estate, artwork, and precious metals – and intangible assets – such as shares, bonds, and intellectual property – into digital tokens on distributed ledger technologies. In commercial terms, tokenisation generally provides an alternative way to own or enjoy exposure to an underlying asset, and, in some ways, that is nothing new for the international financial markets or the Cayman Islands.
The modern derivatives market, including options, swaps, and more complex financial instruments, developed significantly in the latter half of the twentieth century, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, all providing financial exposure to a wide variety of underlying asset classes in the format of a tradeable financial instrument, giving investors financial exposure to the underlying asset without the need to actually engage in a sale and purchase of the referenced asset.
Structured products, which have been around for several decades, and for which the Cayman Islands is a leading offshore issuing jurisdiction, with their popularity increasing notably in the late 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, were developed in response to growing demand for customised investment solutions that did not simply involve buying and selling the underlying asset.
Further, the modern system of depositary receipts – financial instruments that represent ownership in shares of a foreign company, and which are extremely popular in the Cayman Islands – emerged in the mid-twentieth century to facilitate international investment and trading. Depositary receipts allow investors in one country to indirectly hold shares of a company based in another, offering them a convenient and efficient way to access global investment opportunities in their own markets using processes they are familiar with while potentially reducing risks associated with investing in foreign markets and having to comply with foreign processes. The concept gained significant traction following World War II, when companies sought ways to attract foreign investment without having to list directly on multiple international stock exchanges.
If offering investors customised exposure to an underlying asset in an easily tradeable format in alternative markets is nothing new, why tokenise RWAs? Well, some of the traditional methods do have their limitations. ISDA Master Agreements, despite being around since 1987 and much loved by those in the derivatives markets, are not commonly negotiated and entered into between retail investors in their personal capacities, whereas an entire generation of investors happily (and easily) buy tokens on their smartphones. Similarly, launching secured structured notes collateralised by RWAs listed on an exchange in the international capital markets may well be possible, but the barrier for entry is high, the cost prohibitive for all but institutional participants, and the process complex and involving several teams of lawyers. Last, but not least, although depositary receipts are common, they are typically issued by a bank or financial institution, and the shares are typically held by a custodian, making it feasible for only the largest companies. Thus, what is potentially unique about tokenisation is that it can offer several layers of benefits for which traditional financial methods may be able to match some aspects, but not all together in a single package.
These benefits include the following.
In particular, the real draw for industry heavyweights such as Blackrock, JPMorgan Chase, Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs and WisdomTree, among others, who are actively exploring tokenisation is that it can boost operational efficiencies by automating processes using smart contracts, removing intermediaries, simplifying settlements, minimising reconciliation efforts, enhancing compliance, and facilitating programmable asset functionalities. It presents opportunities to refine current transaction systems, resulting in cost reductions for businesses. In particular, financial institutions are experimenting with tokenisation within their secure, permissioned platforms, maintaining complete control over administrative, security, and compliance aspects, and using Cayman Islands vehicles to do so.
How Is Tokenisation Carried Out?
This depends on which of the benefits mentioned above are intended to be prioritised, and from whose perspective. From the perspective of an investor looking to gain exposure to an RWA they couldn’t otherwise afford, or access, tokenisation essentially involves the creation of an electronic representation of a derivative contract providing exposure to the asset but without buying the asset itself. But trading the token in this way does not directly or necessarily inject investment monies to the underlying market of the underlying asset. So, if liquidity is the priority, there are structures involving depositing RWAs in special purpose vehicles acting as asset holding vehicles (AHV) and making tokens tradeable and exchangeable for shares in the AHV. Other participants go further, and have the tokens digitally represent the RWA, although that is not in and of itself straightforward. How can an investment fund, for example, comply with KYC requirements if its tokenised shares are traded on a permissionless basis without the investment fund really knowing who its investors are? The process is possible, but involves significant upfront investment; that said, those who have achieved it have experienced real value.
The response to “what is tokenisation?” lies in another question, and that is “why do you want to tokenise”? In other words, what does the participant wish to achieve from the tokenisation? Is it simply that they wish to buy financial exposure to a RWA in digital format? In this case, they may essentially want to acquire a token which operates like a derivative contract but which is tradeable using blockchain technology. Or is the person an investment manager looking to gain access to more liquidity for their investment fund? In this case, they may be looking for the equivalent of a tokenised collateralised fund obligation (CFO), where tokenised note issuance raises capital and invests the proceeds in ownership interests in the investment funds. Or does an investor want the tokens to be exchangeable for the RWA (or a fractional entitlement thereof)? In this instance, they could be seeking to trade digitised depositary receipts, which entitle the holder to delivery of the RWA but utilise distributed ledger technology to take that market to a higher level of convenience and efficiency.
To Tokensie, Or Not to Tokenise?
The process for considering the merits of tokenisation typically includes several key steps:
Are There Drawbacks to Tokenisation?
Regulatory frameworks around tokenisation continue to evolve, and there is some uncertainty around the application of existing financial regulations to tokenised assets. This may create legal and compliance risks for issuers and investors. Tokenisation can introduce complexities around legal ownership and the enforcement of rights, particularly when assets are tokenised across multiple jurisdictions. Disputes over ownership, governance, or contractual obligations may arise, leading to legal challenges and litigation.
Blockchain technology itself is considered secure, but tokenisation platforms and smart contracts may be vulnerable to hacking, bugs, or exploitation. Tokenisation relies on blockchain technology and smart contracts, which are still relatively new and may have technical limitations or vulnerabilities. Security breaches could result in theft of assets or disruption of tokenised asset systems. Issues such as scalability, network congestion, or protocol upgrades could impact the performance and stability of tokenised asset systems. In less regulated tokenised markets, there is a risk of market manipulation, insider trading, and other fraudulent activities. Lack of interoperability between different tokenisation platforms and networks can hinder liquidity and market efficiency.
While tokenisation can increase liquidity for certain assets, not all assets are suitable for tokenisation. Some illiquid or complex assets may still face liquidity challenges even after being tokenised, especially if there is limited demand from investors. Tokenised assets may be subject to price volatility and speculative trading, particularly in nascent markets with limited regulation and oversight. This volatility can increase investment risk for tokenholders. Lack of transparency and oversight can make it easier for others to manipulate token prices or deceive investors.
The Importance of Structuring
The success of tokenisation therefore lies in structuring and planning. Relied upon for decades as a leading financial jurisdiction for investment funds and structured finance vehicles, and with advisors and service providers comfortable with implementing a wide variety of legal techniques to offer investors the full spectrum of financial exposures to achieve tested or novel investment objectives, the Cayman Islands has excelled as a platform for building tokenisation projects alongside the many hundreds of decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) or DAO adjacent vehicles that are being formed in the jurisdiction. The Cayman Islands in general is regarded as a leading offshore financial centre, and offers a combination of regulatory certainty, tax efficiency, investor confidence and access to global financial markets. Its laws are also based on, and are expected to apply, principles of English common law recently deemed by the UK Law Commission to be sufficiently flexible to support digital assets without the need for statutory intervention. In other words, a dedicated DLT law is not required to constitute and issue digital assets, including digital debt securities, under English law or Cayman Islands law.
Which Cayman Islands Laws May Apply?
Issuers of tokenised securities and operators of tokenised investment funds may need to obtain approvals, licences or registrations from the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), depending on the nature of their activities, and the applicable regulatory requirements and rules regarding the content, format, and distribution of offering memoranda, prospectuses and other offering materials may apply. In general, Cayman Islands entities engaged in activities classed as securities investment business are required to implement anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) compliance programmes, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions to relevant authorities. Accordingly, issuers of tokenised securities and operators of tokenised investment funds may need to comply with AML/CFT regulations to the extent that the token-related activities constitute securities investment business. In general, there are laws in the Cayman Islands that aim to protect investors by ensuring that issuers of securities and operators of investment funds disclose material information, adhere to fiduciary duties, and comply with regulatory standards of conduct. Interested participants should speak to their Cayman Islands attorneys regarding advice and structuring options. Different financial products and structures will achieve different outcomes.
Conclusion
Tokenisation is an exciting area of legal, financial and technological innovation which connects the traditional financial markets and real-world assets with the Web 3.0 community and blockchain technology. It offers participants greater access, greater efficiency, greater savings and an entire class of investors – but also a whole new set of potential challenges. Perhaps, more than anything, it represents a generational shift. And perhaps, with the financial markets cycling through periods of boom and bust as the mistakes of the past are repeated, forgotten and replayed, and new financial products are released, refreshed and replaced to adapt, comply with or stay ahead of evolving regulation, tokenisation will share the same fate as the infamous securitisation of mortgage-backed securities that led to the subprime mortgage crisis and financial recession of 2007–2008. Or maybe we will look back at tokenisation as the end of an era, comparable to modern civilization’s move away from barter economies to the monetary system, where cash replaced the exchange of goods and commodities as the main form of trade. It all boils down to one thing, really: why physically swap two bags of salt when you can digitally exchange a token?
Harbour Place, 2nd Floor
PO Box 472
103 South Church Street
Grand Cayman
KY1-1106
Cayman Islands
+1 345 949 0699
+1 345 949 8171
jta@traversthorpalberga.com www.traversthorpalberga.com/