Tokenization development for licensed WealthTech firms and asset managers. We build custom security token offering platforms for teams issuing tokenized securities: ERC-3643 / ERC-1400 contracts, eligibility and transfer rules enforced on-chain, regulator-ready reporting, and a codebase you own outright at delivery.
This page is for firms that already hold an authorisation. Issuing your first asset without a licence? RWA tokenization development
Your clients hold real estate funds, private equity, infrastructure positions, structured notes and private credit, and they want fractional access and faster settlement. Multi-day settlement and PDF subscription documents will not deliver it. The assets are already under management and the investors are already in your book. What is missing is the programmable layer that turns those positions into tokenized securities your clients can subscribe to, hold and transfer within the rules you set.
Already under management
Real estate funds
Private equity
Infrastructure positions
Structured notes
Private credit
The programmable layerERC-3643 / ERC-1400, eligibility and transfer rules in the contract
Tokenized securitiesYour clients subscribe to, hold and transfer within the rules you set
One Registry, Every Offering
Your first offering onboards your existing client base onto the on-chain identity registry. Every offering after that draws on the same verified registry: a second fund, a bond or a new share class launches without re-running KYC for investors you have already verified.
Identity registry · investor × offering
Your first fundA second fundA bondA new share class
Investor 1
Investor 2
Investor 3
Investor 4
Investor 5
Investor 6
6investors verified, once
0new KYC runs for later offerings
Illustration with 6 investors. The same registry scales to any number of investors and offerings, with each investor verified once.
The Precedent Exists
BlackRock's tokenized money market fund is the largest of its kind, and money market and treasury funds are the biggest tokenized asset class in the live market. Your investment committee will not ask whether a regulated manager can do this. It will ask whether your platform can enforce what your fund documents already promise.
Your investment committee will not ask whether a regulated manager can do this.
Largest of its kindBlackRock's tokenized money market fund
Biggest tokenized asset classMoney market and treasury funds, in the live market
It will ask whether your platform can enforce what your fund documents already promise.
Is this you?
Built for Authorised Firms With Assets and Investors Already on the Books
We build for teams where the following is already true. Switch on what applies.
01You run a WealthTech platform, asset manager, or licensed FinTech with a live product
02You already hold real estate funds, private equity, infrastructure, bonds, or private credit under management
03Your backend is API-first and ready to integrate a new ledger layer
04You are comparing vendors to build with, not deciding whether tokenization is worth doing at all
4of 4
All four hold: this page is for you. If any is not true yet, say so on the call and we will tell you which page fits.
If you do not hold an authorisation yet, the build is a different shape.
The vehicle and the offering route get designed alongside the platform rather than mapped onto permissions you already have. That is the route on RWA tokenization development , and if your structure turns out to sit there we will say so at scoping itself.
Scope
What We Build, and What We Don't
We build the issuance stack: the token, the cap table, the transfer restrictions, the investor portal, the issuer and admin tooling, and the reporting.
We do not operate trading venues or settlement systems, and we do not build them. If your offering needs a trading venue, you use a third-party one. We build the token to meet that venue's holder and transfer requirements.
Your Licence is in Place. Now Build the Infrastructure.
Instrument classification, prospectus requirements, and investor eligibility rules are not new ground for your business. You have already built a compliance function around them.
What is missing is not permission to issue. It is the platform that enforces those existing rules automatically, instead of through manual review.
Registration is the route almost nobody takes: Regulation D for accredited investors, Regulation S for offers made offshore to non-US persons, commonly run side by side as one offering with two eligibility sets
3
Resale restrictions
The resale restrictions and holding periods that attach to each
4
Pooling analysis
Investment Company Act and Advisers Act analysis where the vehicle pools
The engineering does not change with the jurisdiction; the classification does.
That is your counsel's call wherever you are. We build to the determination you bring us.
Underneath any chain sits national law.
It decides whether a token can legally be the security rather than merely represent it, the question that blocks a build after everything else is settled. Countries differ, and the register law is the part that reaches your architecture.
Risk
Where Tokenization Projects Get Risky and How We Address It
Each answer is locked until you ask for it.
Problem 1
The Web3 Talent Gap
Your engineering team can ship your core product. Audit-ready ERC-3643 or ERC-1400 contracts are a different discipline, and hiring for it is a six-month cycle you do not have.
Solution 1
Custom Architecture
Engineered against your fund structure, your jurisdiction and your investor base, not a template retrofitted to fit.
Problem 2
Classification After Architecture Freezes
Your instrument classification and your prospectus path decide your transfer logic, your investor eligibility rules, and the shape of your reporting. Settled late, they stop being a scoping question and become a rebuild.
Solution 2
Classification Before Code
We work through classification, offer-exemption analysis and post-admission obligations with your counsel before development starts. The architecture follows your advisers' determination, and that determination is on the record before anyone writes a transfer rule.
Problem 3
Investor Trust Risk
A contract error on a tokenized fund does not just cost money. It compromises trust in a platform your firm's name is attached to, with clients who were yours before the token existed.
Solution 3
Audit Before Mainnet
Static analysis, manual review and adversarial testing produce a findings report before the platform reaches a live subscription, with time to act. Where your board wants a third-party firm too, we scope it into the same timeline.
Role-based access, full audit trail, KYC/AML status tracking
Regulator Reporting View
Structured outputs for supervisory requests and periodic reporting, in the shape your own regulator expects
Security Audit
Our internal security review before mainnet, with a documented findings report. An independent third-party audit is a separate thing and cannot be us. Where your governance or prospectus requires one, we scope it, manage remediation and re-test.
What Changes in Your Operations
Our delivery history covers fund, bond and private credit structures across the EU, the UK and the US, including the FCA-regulated build published above with the client named.
Investor eligibility
Today
stays a review queue
With the platform
becomes a check that runs at transfer time, in-contract
Most of a tokenized instrument's life happens after the raise closes, and it is the part that gets scoped last.
Audit-Correct Register
The register has to stay audit-correct through every movement. A transfer is validated against investor category, jurisdiction and lock-up state at the moment it is attempted, not against the status recorded when the holder subscribed. So a holder whose category changed, or whose verification lapsed, cannot acquire more. The register then reconciles to what your regulator asks for on any date, not to the date of the last manual reconciliation.
Disclosure Events, Built In
Buybacks, redemptions and corporate actions all move the register, and each needs a defined path: who initiates, what approval it takes, how the cap table and any distribution entitlement are affected. We build these paths in at the start, because each is a disclosure event as well as a transaction.
Getting Your NAV Into the Contract
Your valuation function already produces a NAV. That is not the same as the contract knowing it. And on a fund, unlike a single asset, the contract transacts at that number. Subscriptions and redemptions execute against it, distributions are calculated from it, and investors see their position priced by it. So the contract needs rules around the feed, not just a connection to it.
nav.feedillustrative · 3% tolerance
1 · Submission
2 · Dealing cadence
3 · Has the expected NAV arrived?
4 · Move against the last NAV
Set 1 and 3 to pass to test the deviation guard.
Signed at source
Cadence matched to your dealing calendar
A stale NAV stops dealing rather than pricing it
A deviation guard on top
Which NAV priced which transaction, on the record
DealingSubscriptions and redemptions execute at this NAV.
Signed at source
The NAV arrives from your administrator or valuation function as a signed submission, not a value someone types into an admin panel. Whoever can move the number is a role, with the approvals that implies.
Cadence matched to your dealing calendar
Daily, weekly or at each subscription window, whatever your fund documents commit to.
A stale NAV stops dealing rather than pricing it
If the expected NAV has not arrived, the contract refuses to execute at the last one. Transacting an investor in at a price you know is out of date is the failure mode worth designing against.
A deviation guard on top
A NAV moving further than your tolerance halts for review instead of posting.
Which NAV priced which transaction, on the record
Every subscription, redemption and distribution carries the valuation it used and that valuation's date, because that is the question asked after the fact, by your depositary and anyone reviewing it.
Who is permitted to value, how independent they must be and where liability sits are regime questions, answered on the EU compliance page.
Secondary trading
Secondary Trading: Where Our Build Stops
Admission to a third-party venue imposes requirements from outside your structure. The venue sets holder criteria, transfer conditions and reporting formats, and the token must satisfy them before admission. We build to the venue's specification. If your own trading layer is the goal, that is a different scope and we will tell you on our first call.
The one question that changes the scope most, so we ask it first: can your investors trade with each other on your platform?
YesInvestors trade with each other on infrastructure you run
Issuer Dealer or SI Venue
Your role
Venue
An authorisation stack of its own under your regime. A separate scope and a second conversation: we build the instrument to be admissible to it, and we do not build or operate the venue.
Own bookYour own book is on the other side, or you quote buybacks
Issuer Dealer or SI Venue
Your role
Dealer or systematic internaliser
Its own permission, again.
No to bothInvestors do not trade with each other on your platform, and you do not quote
Issuer Dealer or SI Venue
Your role
Pure issuer
The lightest build available, and the one described here.
Selling your own instruments to your own clients does not make you a venue.
Letting them trade with each other on infrastructure you operate does. It is worth settling at the architecture review, because it is the difference between one permission and three.
A security token offering is not a separate product line bolted onto your platform. It is your existing instrument, issued on a ledger, under the regime it already answers to.
Our work covers the issuance side: the token, the register, the compliance modules, the investor and issuer tooling, the distributions and the audit. Not operating a venue.
The sequence is the same every time — classification, offer route, then the transfer and eligibility rules that follow from both, then your reporting.
We publish what we conform to and where we deviate. On a codebase your disclosure documents refer to, the conformance claim is itself a disclosure item, so an overstatement is a defect in the document rather than a bug in a release.
Full conformance
Paired standard
Declared deviation
Custom build
ERC-3643
Full conformance
token and compliance surface
The base standard, with conformance full on the token and agent-role interfaces. Behind it sit the identity registry, the trusted-issuer and claim-topic registries, and a modular compliance contract holding one rule module per obligation. Eligibility, jurisdiction, lock-up, freeze, forced transfer and recovery are all enforced in-contract rather than in middleware.
ERC-1400 / ERC-1410
Paired standard
the partition pattern
ERC-3643 has no partition model, so tranche and series segmentation uses the ERC-1410 pattern. Each partition carries its own lock-up and transfer restrictions, with holding periods tracked per holder per partition. That is what supports side pockets, per-tranche lock-ups, and a pending state where an accepted subscription is held non-transferable until it settles.
ERC-1643
Paired standard
document anchoring
ERC-3643 does not specify document anchoring, so it is paired with ERC-1643. Hash and URI go on-chain, the document itself stays off-chain. One registry serves every retention duty your offering carries, each with its own clock.
ERC-1967
Full conformance
upgrade path
Standard proxy storage slots, behind a transparent proxy, proxy admin and timelock controller deployed unmodified. An M-of-N multisig proposes, a mandatory delay runs before execution, and every upgrade logs the outgoing implementation, the incoming one, who executed it and when.
ERC-173
Declared deviation
a declared deviation, not an omission
The standard expects an exposed owner(). We do not expose one: governance is fixed at deployment and deliberately cannot be transferred on-chain. Deviations like it go into a conformance register published with the audit, including the interfaces we decide not to implement, because a register listing only your good scores is not a register.
ERC-20
Full conformance
the fungible interface
The fungible interface ERC-3643 extends, which keeps a compliance-gated token readable by standard wallets, explorers and custody tooling while the eligibility rules stay in the contract.
Distributions
Custom build
no standard exists, so this part is custom
There is no ERC for paying investors. ERC-3643 and ERC-1400 define the token and its transfer controls and stop there, so every distribution engine in this field is bespoke code handling other people's money, and it is where we find the most defects in contracts clients bring us to review. Ours is written against your offering terms and tested at the holder counts you expect, not against a reference implementation.
Smart contract audit
STO Smart Contract Audit: What We Check Before Mainnet
Tokenization and STO smart contract audit is a standalone service for us. With 17+ delivered for other teams and an ERC-3643 or ERC-1400 audit asks more than whether the code is exploitable. Run the review.
Audit reviewnot run
Whether the compliance modules enforce the eligibility rules your classification created
Whether the partitions hold their lock-ups
Whether the document registry carries the right retention clocks
Whether the conformance register is honest about what is not implemented
A clean security report on a contract that enforces the wrong investor test is still a failed build.
Contracts another team wrote.
Reviewing them is a genuinely independent audit and we price it on its own. Where we build, our review is internal and the audit your disclosure documents reference comes from a firm that did not write the code. We arrange it and manage remediation. The regime-by-regime version of this review is on the EU compliance page.
Instruments
Security Token Development: The Instruments We Build For
Subscription and redemption, NAV, the register and the transfer restrictions all behave differently per instrument, and each difference lands in the contract.
Real estate funds
What differs
Pooled property vehicles, where the unit is the instrument and the building is not
Infrastructure funds
What differs
Long-dated, closed-ended, including renewable and energy assets
Private equity funds
What differs
Capital calls, commitment tracking, transfer consent
Bond programmes
What differs
Issuer-owned debt, coupon logic, final terms per issuance
Structured notes and private credit
What differs
Where the payoff is defined by formula rather than by a holding
Tokenizing a single asset you own outright rather than a vehicle that holds it? That is a different build and a different page: RWA tokenization .
Add Tokenization Without Rebuilding Your Stack
Connect the tokenization layer to your existing custody, KYC, banking, and reporting infrastructure. Select a connection on the diagram.
Custody
The platform is non-custodial: it takes no client fiat or investor keys; investors self-custody. Where your vehicle requires a depositary or qualified custodian, we integrate with your appointee and transfer logic respects its existing signing flow.
KYC/AML
Works with your current KYC provider. Verification status wires straight into the whitelist contract. A passed check adds the wallet; a failed re-check removes it.
Core banking / back-office
The platform is API-first, with documented endpoints. A webhook-based system notifies the event system for position updates, distributions, and corporate actions.
Reporting
Structured outputs shaped for your regulator's reporting obligations. They are exportable, version-controlled, tied to the on-chain event log.
Case study
How One FCA-Regulated Client Kept Its Compliance Framework
A UK real estate investment firm operating under the FCA Appointed Representative framework came to us with the problem you may recognise. The checks were already being done correctly, by hand. Investor eligibility review ran 3 to 10 business days per investor, the cap table was reconciled periodically rather than continuously, and every eligibility decision lived in a document instead of an enforced system. At twenty investors that worked. At two hundred it would not.
Eligibility review
Before3–10 business days, manual
After15–30 minutes, automated
On-chain compliance violations—0, blocked at protocol level
Cap table reconciliationperiodic manual revieweliminated, real-time on-chain
Incidents, first 6 months live—0
Re-explaining the setup to the regulatormultiple per engagement0 after handover
We did not replace their compliance framework. We encoded it.
FCA-aligned investor categories as claim topics on a permissioned identity registry, their existing KYC provider wired in by API, and a re-KYC scheduler, because under an AR permission investor status cannot be assumed permanent.
Audited before the first investor.
Before the first investor onboarded, the platform went to an external audit firm, not to us. Every critical, high and medium finding resolved and re-audited. The clean report placed in the investor vault where verified investors could read it from day one.
“The smart contracts enforced investor eligibility checks we'd have otherwise managed manually. It's been running for two quarters now with no issues.”
Your structure, your existing stack and your compliance lead's requirements in one session, ending in a scope you recognise rather than a proposal template.
Specification sign-off
Classification and offer route from your counsel, mapped to the modules that enforce them. Approved by you and compliance before any code.
Build
Contracts, cap table, transfer-agent logic, portals, reporting view against your fund documents, not a reference implementation.
Integration
Custody, KYC, core banking and reporting wired to what you already run.
Review and audit
Our internal security review, documented findings, every critical and high resolved before a live subscription. Then the independent third-party audit your disclosure documents reference, arranged by us and performed by a firm that did not write the code. We manage the remediation against it.
Deployment and handover
We deploy to the chain and the cloud or on-premise estate you chose at scoping, set up monitoring, and hand over the incident-response plan, the conformance register and the codebase, yours outright. It runs on your infrastructure under your accounts, so there is no licence fee and nothing to renew.
Cost
What Moves the Cost of STO Development
We will not print a range on a page, because one range cannot fit every fund. What sets your price is a few answers about your structure. You can see where you sit on them below, before you speak to us.
Vehicle
LighterA single instrument, one class, one jurisdiction
FullerA prospectus filing, with the technical annex that goes in it
Investor base
LighterProfessional only, one jurisdiction
FullerRetail in scope, or several jurisdictions with different eligibility rules
Integrations
LighterAPI-first stack, one KYC provider
FullerCore banking, a named depositary, an existing transfer agent, legacy reporting
Secondary
LighterHolder-to-holder transfer only
FullerAdmission to a third-party venue, on that venue's holder and reporting requirements
Those five are the architecture review. Bring answers to them and the call produces a scope and a real number rather than a discovery session, which is the whole reason the review exists and why it is the only thing we ask you to book.
We will not print a range on a page, because one range cannot fit every fund. What sets your price is a few answers about your structure. You can see where you sit on them below, before you speak to us.
12
12 Tokenization Platforms Delivered Since 2019
Production experience, not a proof of concept. These were built for live offerings under real legal structures, with the compliance obligations that come with them.
17+ · 0
17+ Smart Contract Audits Delivered for Other Teams, 0 Exploits Shipped to Mainnet
Static analysis, manual review, and adversarial testing on every contract we ship. For a regulated instrument, an exploit costs more than funds, it costs regulatory standing. Zero have shipped to mainnet across everything we have delivered.
✓
Built for Regulatory Review
Architecture decisions, compliance controls, testing evidence and documentation are structured for review and scrutiny. The result is examinable and defensible before production.
Industry certifications and standards
ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management System
Our ISMS governs what we handle during an engagement: your fund documents, source code, and the credentials used to build and deploy. It is not where your investor records live. The platform runs on your infrastructure under your accounts, so after handover we are not in the data path at all. That is worth stating to your compliance lead explicitly, because most vendor-risk questionnaires assume otherwise.
Get the Vendor Risk Pack Before Your First Call
A vendor review brought in late is the most common reason a signed deal stalls. Take the pack first, so your review runs alongside technical scoping rather than after it: company overview, ISO 27001 status, data processing statement, sub-processor register.
See what an InnBlockchain audit looks like before you commission one. Every file read in full rather than sampled, findings proven through executable proof-of-concept exploits against the real contract stack rather than mocks, and severity reported Critical through Informational rather than filtered to a clean headline.
or your own estate where data residency requires it
FAQs
Questions Firms Ask Before the First Call
01Why build custom instead of configuring something off the shelf?
A configured product encodes the median fund structure. Yours has a specific authorisation status, a named depositary, a home regulator, and an investor base with its own eligibility rules. A custom build encodes those from day one instead of working around a fixed module set.
02Which jurisdictions do you build for?
The EU is the specialism, and the regime work behind it is on the EU compliance page. Elsewhere the engineering is identical and the classification work is your counsel's: we build to their determination rather than offering a view we cannot evidence.
03How much does this cost, and how long does it take?
Depends on jurisdiction, instrument type, and how many systems we integrate with. We give you real numbers on a platform architecture review call, not a placeholder range.
04What compliance documentation do you provide, and will this fit our stack?
Two packs, both downloadable without a sales call. The vendor risk pack: company overview, ISO 27001 status, data processing statement, sub-processor register, plus an EU annex for EU-authorised firms. The compliance brief for issuers: the classification test, the prospectus and exemption routes, and the reporting and retention duties that attach. Send your procurement questionnaire and we will answer it against the same evidence rather than returning a brochure. If your backend is API-first and live, it wires directly into the custody and KYC providers you already run.
05We've never heard of InnBlockchain, and we have no in-house Web3 engineers. Why you?
We own the smart contract and compliance architecture end to end, so your team's Solidity depth does not block the build. On the first question: ask any vendor for an audit report and a live deployment reference rather than a mockup. We can show both across 12 platforms since 2019, zero exploits.
06Do you operate the venue, or the settlement layer?
Neither, and we do not build them. We build the issuance stack and make the token admissible to a third-party venue on that venue's requirements. If your own trading layer is the real goal, we will say so on call one.
Ready to Add a Tokenized Securities Product Line to Your Platform?
Tell us your structure. We'll tell you exactly what it takes to build it.
Every ambitious idea deserves a team that truly understands it. We’re here to listen first, guide honestly, and engineer a solution that fits your goals.
Enter Your Details
Enter Your Details
Thanks to exhibit your welfare on our service. We will get back to you if you feel free to fill out this form given below.
