In recent weeks, a coalition of major financial market operators—including Nasdaq, Germany’s Boerse Stuttgart, and a number of other exchanges and fintech firms—has formally appealed to the European Union to either lift the current ceiling on tokenised assets or, at the very least, increase it substantially. The request stems from growing frustration that the existing limit, set as part of the EU’s pilot regime for the tokenisation of securities, is quickly becoming a bottleneck for projects that are already demonstrating strong demand and operational viability. The EU’s tokenisation framework, introduced under the Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation (MiCA) and supplemented by a dedicated pilot programme, was designed to test the feasibility of issuing and trading digital representations of traditional assets such as equities, bonds, and real‑estate interests on distributed ledger technology (DLT) platforms. To prevent systemic risk while the regulatory environment matures, the Commission initially imposed a cap on the total market value of assets that could be tokenised under the pilot.
This ceiling was intended as a temporary safeguard, but the coalition now contends that it is far too restrictive for the pace at which the market is evolving. Nasdaq, a global leader in exchange services and market infrastructure, highlighted several pilot projects currently underway in Europe that already exceed the prescribed limit. In a statement, Nasdaq’s European head of digital assets explained that the firm is working with a consortium of banks and asset managers to tokenise a portfolio of mid‑cap equities valued at roughly €1.2 billion—well above the current cap of €500 million. "Our participants are eager to explore the efficiencies, transparency, and liquidity benefits that tokenisation can deliver," the spokesperson said.
"However, the artificial ceiling forces us to either truncate the scope of our offerings or to seek costly regulatory waivers, both of which undermine the pilot’s purpose of fostering innovation." Boerse Stuttgart, one of Germany’s leading stock exchanges, echoed similar concerns. The exchange has been piloting a tokenised bond platform that allows institutional investors to purchase fractionalised pieces of corporate debt directly on a DLT‑based marketplace. According to Boerse Stuttgart’s chief digital officer, the pilot has attracted interest for a total issuance of €750 million, surpassing the EU limit by 50 percent. "We are witnessing a clear appetite from issuers and investors alike for a more efficient, 24/7 trading environment," the officer noted.
"The current cap not only curtails the scale of our projects but also sends a mixed signal to the market about the EU’s commitment to digital finance." Beyond these two prominent players, the coalition includes a range of smaller exchanges, custodians, and blockchain service providers who collectively argue that the cap hampers the development of a truly pan‑European tokenised market. Many of these participants point to the fact that the pilot’s original intent was to test regulatory approaches, not to constrain commercial activity. By keeping the ceiling artificially low, the EU risks pushing innovative firms to seek more favourable jurisdictions outside Europe, potentially eroding the continent’s competitive edge in fintech.
The coalition’s petition to the European Commission outlines three main arguments for revising the cap: 1. **Empirical Evidence of Overshoot** – Several pilot projects have already demonstrated that market demand exceeds the current limit, as evidenced by the €1.2 billion tokenisation initiative led by Nasdaq and the €750 million bond tokenisation effort by Boerse Stuttgart.
2. **Economic Efficiency Gains** – Tokenisation promises reduced settlement times, lower transaction costs, and enhanced liquidity. By restricting the size of these pilots, the EU prevents market participants from fully quantifying these benefits, which could otherwise inform future policy decisions.
3. **Competitive Positioning** – Other jurisdictions, notably the United States, Singapore, and Switzerland, have adopted more permissive approaches to digital asset tokenisation. Maintaining a low cap could drive capital and talent away from Europe toward these more accommodating markets. In response, EU officials have acknowledged the concerns but stress that any adjustment must be carefully calibrated to avoid systemic risk.
A senior adviser at the European Commission’s Directorate‑General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (DG‑FIN) remarked, "We are closely monitoring the pilot’s outcomes and are open to revisiting the cap if the data supports a broader rollout. Our priority remains safeguarding market integrity while enabling innovation." The debate is expected to intensify over the coming months as the pilot’s first phase draws to a close.
Stakeholders anticipate that the Commission will publish a formal review, possibly accompanied by a proposal to raise the cap to €2 billion or to replace the fixed ceiling with a dynamic, risk‑based framework. Such a move would align the EU’s regulatory stance with the rapid pace of technological advancement and the growing appetite for digital securities. For now, Nasdaq, Boerse Stuttgart, and their fellow signatories are preparing a detailed impact assessment to accompany their request.
The document will include quantitative analyses of cost savings, liquidity improvements, and risk mitigation strategies observed in the existing pilots. By presenting a data‑driven case, the coalition hopes to demonstrate that a higher or eliminated cap would not only be safe but also beneficial for the broader European financial ecosystem. In summary, the coalition’s appeal reflects a broader tension between regulatory prudence and the desire to capture the economic upside of tokenised assets.
As the EU continues to refine its approach to digital finance, the outcome of this request could shape the continent’s role in the emerging global market for blockchain‑based securities. Whether the Commission decides to raise the limit, replace it with a more flexible mechanism, or maintain the status quo, the discussion underscores the importance of aligning policy with the realities of a rapidly evolving financial landscape.