Antonio Tejeda Encinas | Lawyer | CEO META Channel Corporation
There is something that is repeated too often in the current discourse on tokenization and digital assets, especially on LinkedIn, and that deserves to be said without stridency or corrective spirit, but clearly. There is less and less talk about technology by those who come from technology, and more and more talk about Law. Not as a recognition of dependency, but as an occupation of space.
It is not a coincidental phenomenon. It’s not necessarily malicious either. It is, rather, a symptom of incomplete maturation of the sector.
For years, the competitive advantage was in mastering the technical layer. Blockchain, smart contracts, automation, scalability. That made a difference. Not today. Technology is still necessary, but it is no longer sufficient. As soon as the discourse tries to leave the experimental environment and address investors, real companies or tangible assets, uncomfortable evidence appears: without legal structure there is no asset, there is no transmission, there is no financing and there is no possible execution. And that shifts the focus.
The problem is not that the legal framework is mentioned. The problem is how it is done and where it is done from. It is one thing to recognize that an operation needs prior legal architecture. It is quite another to speak as if you have mastered that architecture, to give normative explanations, to anticipate regulatory fits or to suggest legal solutions without having either the training or the responsibility that this implies. There is no disciplinary integration there. There is confusion.
In real trading, the law is neither a reassuring narrative nor a decorative layer to make the investor feel comfortable. It is the infrastructure that decides if what is proposed exists legally, if it is transferable, if it is enforceable against third parties and if it can be sustained before a regulator, a bank or a judge. That is why the natural order is never “we tokenize and then we see.” The order is different: first what you want to do, then whether that is legally possible and under what configuration, and only then what instrument is used, be it tokenization or another more classic vehicle. Technology executes. The Law defines.
When that order is reversed in discourse, although not always in intention, the market becomes contaminated. The reader receives contradictory signals. It seems that tokenization is the inevitable destiny and that legal analysis is a later procedure. And that’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous. It generates expectations that are not sustained, projects that do not survive the first institutional filter and a growing sensation of sophisticated smoke that ends up taking its toll on the entire ecosystem.
The paradox is that many technical profiles talk about Law precisely because they sense its centrality. They know that the serious investor does not decide on a technical demo, but on a structure. And instead of relying on whoever dominates that layer, they try to occupy it discursively. Not because they know more, but because they know that the key is there. The result is not leadership, it is rhetorical intrusion. And the market perceives it, although it does not always know how to explain it.
The true maturity of the sector will not come when everyone has an opinion on everything, but when each discipline naturally takes its place. When the technologist does not have to pretend that he knows about Law, and the jurist does not have to disguise himself as a technological evangelist. Integration is not imposed transversality. It is architecture with clear roles, defined responsibility and structural criteria.
Of course, there are exceptions: profiles or teams that combine real, not imposed, technical and legal training, and that can navigate both worlds with authority. But as a general rule, intrusion only generates confusion and false expectations. If that integration is needed, it is better to turn to those who truly master it, whether through collaborations or solid hybrid structures. In the end, real leadership, in this context, is not given by the code or the normative quote. It gives it the ability to build something that truly exists, that can be financed, transmitted and sustained over time. Everything else is noise. And the noise, sooner or later, stops convincing.
