{"id":40400,"date":"2026-06-22T10:24:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T10:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/en\/perspectives\/technology-and-law-in-asset-tokenisation-2\/"},"modified":"2026-06-22T10:24:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T10:24:00","slug":"technology-and-law-in-asset-tokenisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/perspectives\/technology-and-law-in-asset-tokenisation\/","title":{"rendered":"Each professional in their own field: technology and law in asset tokenisation"},"content":{"rendered":"

META Channel Corporation | TokenLab division<\/strong><\/p>\n

I keep coming across more and more talk about tokenisation and blockchain in which the problem is no longer the technology, but the way the legal aspects are being explained.<\/p>\n

For years, technologists talked about technology: infrastructure, protocols, efficiency, tokenisation, automation and new ways of representing assets. Perfectly fine. That was their natural territory.<\/p>\n

The problem arises when, in order to make those solutions more commercially appealing, some of them start explaining the law as if they were legal specialists. And at that point the risk is no longer merely technical or a matter of communication: it creates a false impression of the legal reality of what is being offered.<\/p>\n

What is more, they often no longer even talk about their product, why it is better or what situations it resolves. They go straight into legal territory. It is as if an estate agent, instead of explaining the property they are selling, set about justifying the characteristic strength of the concrete, the proportioning of the materials or the reinforcement calculations for the columns.<\/p>\n

It is not enough to be able to use a few of the sector\u2019s terms. SPV, MiCA, security token, utility token, register, beneficiary, ownership, trust, compliance or investor rights are not interchangeable labels. They do not mean the same thing in every jurisdiction. They do not produce the same effects. They are not dealt with in the same way in Spain, in Latin America, in the United States or in common law structures.<\/p>\n

Real-world asset tokenisation requires genuine collaboration between different profiles. A technologist should explain the technological side. A specialist lawyer should explain the legal side. And when a company brings both capabilities together, it must know in what capacity each professional is speaking at any given moment.<\/p>\n

First, you have to determine what RIGHT exists, how it is structured and under which law it operates. Then TECHNOLOGY comes in. And then LAW comes back, because execution, monitoring, liability and enforcement are still legal matters.<\/p>\n

This is not aimed at technologists. Quite the opposite. Good technologists are indispensable. But precisely for that reason, those who know what they are doing have no need to encroach on territory that is not theirs. The same must be demanded of the lawyer who knows nothing about blockchain architecture and yet still presumes to pontificate on code, custody or technical infrastructure.<\/p>\n

The sector needs less superficial appropriation of legal language and more professional respect between disciplines.<\/p>\n

Because when someone explains the law badly, even if they sell the technology well, they are not raising the market standard. They are confusing the client, the investor and the ecosystem itself.<\/p>\n

And in a sector that aspires to work with real-world assets, capital, economic rights and transnational structures, that confusion is not harmless. It is risk.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

META Channel Corporation | TokenLab division I keep coming across more and more talk about tokenisation and blockchain in which the problem is no longer the technology, but the way the legal aspects are being explained. For years, technologists talked about technology: infrastructure, protocols, efficiency, tokenisation, automation and new ways of representing assets. Perfectly fine. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40598,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4380,4382],"tags":[4569,4400],"class_list":["post-40400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-regulation-and-compliance-ar","category-blockchain-and-web3-finance-ar","tag-antonio-tejeda-encinas-ar","tag-blockchain-ar"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40400\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40598"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/metachannelcorp.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}