AFM en DNB pleiten voor duidelijk juridisch kader voor tokenisatie
AI Analysis
AFM and DNB stated on 7 October 2026 that Dutch law does not currently provide a sufficient legal basis for securities that are issued, held and transferred exclusively as tokens, meaning native tokenisation is not presently workable under existing Dutch legislation. The publication is a policy signal rather than a new binding requirement, but it indicates that the regulators expect a coordinated government, supervisory and market process to assess legislative clarification and align the Netherlands with European tokenisation developments.
Key dates
- 2026-10-07
- AFM and DNB published their joint policy statement and exploration on tokenisation of securities in the Netherlands.
- 2023-03-23
- Applications became available under the EU DLT Pilot Regime as implemented and supervised in the Netherlands; this is relevant background for firms assessing DLT market-infrastructure models, not a new deadline arising from the AFM and DNB publication.
Suggested considerations
- Firms should classify each proposed tokenised instrument by its legal and regulatory characteristics, distinguishing securities or other MiFID II financial instruments from crypto-assets covered by MiCA and from non-financial crypto-assets.
- Compliance and legal teams may wish to document whether the proposed arrangement is native tokenisation or a hybrid model, identify which record constitutes the legally authoritative record, and assess the resulting title, transfer, custody, settlement and insolvency risks under Dutch law.
- Market infrastructures and investment firms considering a DLT model should assess whether Regulation (EU) 2022/858 and the Dutch DLT Pilot Regime are available, including the need for specific permission and the eligibility limits applicable to DLT financial instruments and operators.
- Firms should continue applying existing requirements, including MiFID II conduct and organisational rules, the Prospectus Regulation where applicable, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse, Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 on central securities depositories where applicable, and relevant custody, client-asset and investor-protection controls; the AFM and DNB statement does not disapply them.
- Issuers, custodians, trading venues and service providers may wish to participate in or monitor the proposed government-supervisor-market follow-up and prepare concrete use cases that identify where statutory clarification, contractual documentation or a Dutch legislative amendment would be needed.
- Firms operating cross-border should compare the Dutch position with jurisdictions that have introduced specific legal recognition for electronic or DLT-based securities, while avoiding reliance on another jurisdiction's legal treatment without confirming Dutch offering, custody, settlement and investor-protection implications.
- Governance functions may wish to update technology, legal, operational-resilience and outsourcing risk assessments to account for the possibility that infrastructure and issuance activity migrate to jurisdictions offering greater legal certainty.
What changed
No legislation, regulatory technical standard, authorisation requirement or immediate compliance deadline was introduced. AFM and DNB jointly identified a legal gap: although EU and Dutch law do not generally prohibit DLT, market participants are commonly forced to maintain both a DLT-based record and a traditional legal administration, creating uncertainty about the legal significance of the token and limiting efficiency gains. The regulators called for a timely follow-up involving government, supervisors and market participants, using concrete use cases to determine whether clarification of existing rules is sufficient or whether amendments to legislation are needed. Independent commentary and market analysis generally interpret the announcement as a push for Dutch legal certainty around
Compliance impact
The immediate compliance impact is limited because the publication creates no new binding obligation or deadline. Its strategic and legal significance is material: the regulators warn that continued reliance on hybrid records may create uncertainty over the legal status and transfer of tokenised securities and may cause investment and future market infrastructure to move to other jurisdictions, wh
Who is affected
Related regulations
References
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AFM source before acting. Full disclaimer.
What the AFM said
Het Nederlandse juridische kader biedt momenteel geen basis voor effecten die uitsluitend als token worden uitgegeven, aangehouden en overgedragen. Daardoor dreigt Nederland achter te raken bij de ontwikkeling van digitale financiële markten en toekomstige financiële marktinfrastructuren. Dat concluderen de Autoriteit…
Extract from AFM . Read the full notice at the source for the authoritative text.