SEC vs ESMA: Tokenized Fund Regulation Compared

SEC vs ESMA: Divergent Approaches to Tokenized Fund Regulation

The world’s two largest regulated fund markets — the United States ($31.3 trillion in registered fund assets as of Q1 2026) and the European Union (EUR 21 trillion in UCITS and AIF assets) — have adopted fundamentally different approaches to tokenized fund regulation. With the tokenized treasury market reaching $11.70 billion across 73 products and 55,520 holders (RWA.xyz, March 2026) and the broader RWA market exceeding $20 billion excluding stablecoins, understanding these differences is essential for fund sponsors developing multi-jurisdictional tokenized ETF products and for institutional investors evaluating cross-border allocations.

Regulatory Philosophy

SEC approach: Enforcement-based boundary-setting. The SEC has not issued formal rulemaking for tokenized fund products. Instead, the regulatory framework emerges from three sources: enforcement actions that define prohibited conduct through case-by-case precedent; staff guidance, no-action letters, and informal interpretive positions that provide industry comfort on specific questions; and the implicit acceptance of products that operate without SEC objection — most notably Franklin Templeton’s BENJI token ($1.01 billion AUM, deployed across 9 chains with patent-pending intraday yield), BlackRock’s BUIDL fund ($2.01 billion AUM across 8 chains), and WisdomTree’s WTGXX ($742.8 million AUM), which received SEC exemptive relief on February 24, 2026, for 24/7 trading and instant settlement — the first registered tokenized mutual fund shares permitted to trade around the clock within the U.S. regulatory perimeter.

This approach provides flexibility — fund sponsors can innovate within the gaps of existing regulation — but creates legal uncertainty. The absence of formal guidance means that compliance determinations are based on legal interpretation rather than regulatory instruction. A fund sponsor’s counsel may conclude that a particular tokenized structure complies with the Investment Company Act and Rule 6c-11, but this conclusion rests on legal analysis rather than regulatory confirmation, and the SEC retains the ability to disagree through future enforcement.

The SEC’s principles-based approach also means that no specific blockchain technology governance standards exist for US-registered funds. Fund sponsors are free to choose their blockchain platform, smart contract architecture, and oracle network without prescriptive regulatory requirements — but they bear the risk that the SEC could later determine that their choices were inadequate for investor protection.

ESMA approach: Comprehensive legislation. The EU has constructed an explicit, multi-layered regulatory framework for tokenized financial products through: MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, effective July 2026), governing crypto-asset service providers including those supporting fund tokenization; the DLT Pilot Regime (operational since March 2023), providing a time-limited regulatory sandbox for tokenized securities trading and settlement on distributed ledger infrastructure; ESMA technical standards, specifying operational requirements for tokenized fund valuation, reporting, and technology governance; the UCITS Directive and AIFMD, establishing the base regulatory framework within which tokenized fund products must operate; and MiFID II distribution rules, governing how tokenized fund products are distributed to investors.

This approach provides clarity — fund sponsors know precisely what is required — but creates substantial compliance burden. The multiple overlapping regulatory frameworks (MiCA + DLT Pilot + UCITS/AIFMD + MiFID II + national regulator requirements) produce compliance complexity that the SEC’s single-regulator approach avoids. A fund manager launching a tokenized UCITS in Luxembourg must navigate CSSF fund authorization, MiCA CASP requirements, DLT Pilot Regime venue requirements, and MiFID II distribution rules — each with separate documentation, approval timelines, and ongoing reporting obligations.

Custody Requirements

The most significant custody difference is the EU depositary’s oversight function. EU UCITS depositaries must independently verify that the fund’s management company complies with investment restrictions, valuation policies, and dealing procedures — extending to DLT infrastructure integrity for tokenized funds. US qualified custodians have no equivalent oversight obligation; compliance monitoring is the responsibility of the fund’s chief compliance officer and board of directors.

The US vs EU custody requirements comparison provides detailed analysis of the practical implications of these differences for fund sponsors operating across both jurisdictions.

Fund Authorization Pathway

The EU’s UCITS passport is a significant competitive advantage for European tokenized fund products. A tokenized UCITS authorized in Luxembourg can be distributed across all 27 EU member states through a notification process, without separate authorization in each country. The US has no equivalent cross-border distribution mechanism — US-registered funds require separate regulatory arrangements for non-US distribution.

Disclosure Requirements

The SEC requires standard fund disclosure (prospectus, SAI, N-PORT filings) without specific tokenization provisions. Fund sponsors disclose blockchain-specific risks voluntarily, guided by legal counsel’s assessment of material risk factors. The SEC’s comment letter process has de facto established disclosure expectations — sponsors whose prospectuses lack blockchain risk factors can expect SEC staff comments requesting them — but these expectations are informal rather than codified.

ESMA’s framework requires specific disclosures about: the blockchain network and smart contract technology employed; DLT-specific risks in the fund’s Key Information Document (KID) under MiFID II; oracle network details for NAV calculation, including network selection rationale and redundancy arrangements; the process for converting between tokenized and traditional share classes; custody arrangements for digital assets with specific reference to CASP authorization; and smart contract audit reports (available to the regulator, and summary findings available to investors).

Settlement Infrastructure

The SEC relies on DTCC-centered settlement infrastructure, with DTCC Digital Assets developing DLT capabilities as an incremental addition to existing systems. The US approach is evolutionary — extending traditional infrastructure to accommodate blockchain assets rather than building parallel DLT-native infrastructure. The spot Bitcoin ETF approvals in January 2024 and spot Ethereum ETF approvals in May 2024 demonstrated this approach: crypto ETFs settle through existing DTCC/DTC infrastructure, with only the underlying asset custody handled through blockchain-specific arrangements (primarily Coinbase Custody).

ESMA’s approach establishes parallel DLT-native infrastructure through the DLT Pilot Regime, which creates new categories of regulated market infrastructure (DLT MTF, DLT SS, DLT TSS) operating alongside traditional exchanges and CSDs. The EU simultaneously explores wholesale CBDC settlement through the ECB’s digital euro program, which includes tokenized securities settlement as a core use case. This approach is revolutionary — building new infrastructure rather than adapting existing systems.

Euroclear, the largest international CSD, is developing DLT capabilities on both sides: integrating with the DLT Pilot Regime’s new infrastructure while also adding blockchain settlement to its existing platform. This dual approach positions Euroclear to serve both evolutionary (US-style) and revolutionary (EU-style) settlement models.

Enforcement Approach

The SEC’s enforcement history creates a body of de facto regulation for digital asset products. The SEC enforcement precedents analysis catalogs how enforcement actions have shaped compliance expectations for tokenized fund sponsors.

Practical Implications for Multi-Jurisdictional Funds

Fund sponsors developing tokenized ETF products for both US and EU markets must navigate the intersection of these two frameworks:

Documentation: Prepare compliance documentation satisfying both frameworks simultaneously. In practice, this means adopting EU-level disclosure standards (more prescriptive) and US custody standards (different entity requirements), resulting in a documentation package that exceeds either single-jurisdiction requirement.

Custody arrangements: Select custodians/depositaries that satisfy both regulatory frameworks. The custodian must be a US qualified custodian AND an EU UCITS depositary (or sub-custodian to one), with MiCA CASP authorization for digital asset custody. Currently, only a small number of institutions (including BNY Mellon and State Street) are positioned to serve both roles.

Technology governance: Implement EU-level technology governance (smart contract audit, oracle governance documentation, DLT risk assessment) for all jurisdictions, even though the SEC does not specifically require it. This “regulate to the highest standard” approach reduces regulatory risk and demonstrates best practice for SEC examination purposes.

Cost implications: The cost premium for dual-jurisdiction compliance is estimated at 40-60% above single-jurisdiction compliance, creating a competitive advantage for fund sponsors with established multi-jurisdictional compliance infrastructure (BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Invesco, DWS, Amundi).

The institutional investor guide addresses how investors should evaluate funds operating across these two regulatory regimes, while the regulatory filing guide provides the step-by-step process for filing in each jurisdiction. Regulatory frameworks are available at sec.gov and esma.europa.eu.

Settlement Infrastructure Divergence

The SEC and ESMA oversee fundamentally different settlement infrastructure ecosystems for tokenized fund products:

US settlement: The DTCC serves as the single dominant central securities depository and clearing corporation for US securities, including ETF shares. DTCC’s Digital Asset Platform is developing DLT settlement capabilities, but production deployment for tokenized ETF settlement has not been announced. In the interim, tokenized fund products like BlackRock’s BUIDL and Franklin Templeton’s BENJI operate settlement through blockchain networks alongside (not within) DTCC infrastructure.

EU settlement: Euroclear and Clearstream serve as the primary international central securities depositories, while national CSDs operate across member states. The EU DLT Pilot Regime explicitly authorizes DLT-based settlement as an alternative to CSD settlement, providing regulatory authority for tokenized fund products to settle on-chain. This explicit authorization contrasts with the SEC’s silence on DLT settlement for registered fund products.

The divergence in settlement infrastructure regulation creates practical implications for cross-border tokenized fund products. A fund sponsor operating tokenized ETFs in both the US and EU must maintain dual settlement capabilities — interacting with DTCC infrastructure for US products and DLT Pilot Regime infrastructure for EU products. The tokenized ETF settlement infrastructure analysis examines these systems in detail.

Future Regulatory Convergence Prospects

Despite their different approaches, the SEC and ESMA may converge on tokenized fund regulation over time through several mechanisms:

IOSCO coordination: The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published its Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets in November 2023, establishing baseline standards that both the SEC and ESMA are incorporating into their regulatory frameworks. IOSCO’s recommendations on custody, disclosure, and market integrity provide common reference points.

Market-driven convergence: As global fund sponsors (BlackRock, Vanguard, Amundi, DWS) develop tokenized fund products for multiple markets, they advocate for regulatory consistency — creating indirect pressure for SEC-ESMA convergence on key standards.

Technology standardization: Emerging industry standards for tokenized securities — including token standards (ERC-3643, ERC-1400), smart contract audit frameworks, and oracle network governance — create technical commonality that may facilitate regulatory alignment.

The pace of convergence depends on political dynamics in both jurisdictions. The SEC’s approach may evolve significantly depending on policy priorities, while ESMA’s framework is anchored in legislation (MiCA, DLT Pilot Regime) that provides more structural stability. The Asia-Pacific comparison shows how third-party jurisdictions — particularly Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland — are positioning themselves to benefit from any prolonged SEC-ESMA divergence by offering clearer or more flexible tokenized fund authorization pathways.

For inquiries regarding this analysis: info@etftokenisation.com