The tokenisation of real-world assets has moved into production. Financial institutions are issuing tokenised funds, bonds and private credit instruments across multiple jurisdictions. The direction of travel is clear. Tokenisation is becoming part of the next generation of capital markets infrastructure.

But issuance is only the first step. For tokenised markets to mature, assets need to move beyond the venue where they were first distributed. Investors need access to liquidity. Issuers need broader market reach. Venues need a scalable way to onboard products. Without this, tokenised assets risk remaining trapped in isolated pools of liquidity.

That is the problem the GRADE Issuer-Venue Eligibility Passport is designed to address.

The bottleneck is not just technology

It is tempting to frame tokenised secondary markets as a technology challenge. Which blockchain? Which smart contract standard? How does settlement happen on-chain?
These questions matter. But they are only part of the problem.

In regulated capital markets, assets do not trade simply because tokens can move between wallets. They trade because the legal, operational and compliance infrastructure around the asset supports a valid transfer of ownership.

That is where secondary market development becomes difficult. A tokenised asset listed on one venue cannot be assumed compatible with another. Each new issuer-venue pairing may require a fresh review of the product’s legal structure, ownership model, custody arrangements, transfer mechanics, onboarding requirements, investor eligibility rules, reporting obligations and technical architecture.

In practice, every new listing can become a bespoke integration project. For issuers, this increases cost and slows multi-venue distribution. For venues, it extends time-to-list and constrains the pipeline of tokenised products. For investors, it means fewer venues, thinner liquidity and reduced access after initial issuance. This is not a marginal friction. It goes to the heart of whether tokenised assets can develop real secondary market depth.

The real problem is portability

Tokenised assets are not all structured the same way. In some models, tokenisation occurs at the broker level. In others, at the custodian level. In others, the issuer’s own register is represented on-chain. Each model carries different implications for ownership, settlement, transfer mechanics and compliance.

Venues also operate differently. Some use off-chain order books. Some hold assets through exchange wallets. Others use on-chain smart contract order books. Each model introduces different considerations around custody, beneficial ownership and regulatory reporting.
These differences are not defects. They reflect legitimate legal, regulatory and commercial choices.

The problem is that, without a common framework, these differences are discovered too late, assessed inconsistently and resolved bilaterally from scratch. Every listing starts from a blank sheet of paper. That is why the market needs more than integrations. It needs a repeatable way to assess issuer-venue compatibility.

What the Passport does

The GRADE Issuer-Venue Eligibility Passport introduces a shared evidence set and common assessment logic for evaluating whether a tokenised asset issuer and a secondary market venue are legally, technically and operationally compatible.

The aim is not to force every issuer or venue into the same operating model. The aim is to make the relevant differences visible, comparable and assessable.

Issuers document the key features of their tokenised asset operating model: product structure, governing law, ownership register design, on-chain architecture, custody arrangements, onboarding requirements, transfer mechanics and reporting obligations. Venues document how they operate: investor profiles supported, infrastructure used, how assets are held or transferred, and applicable regulatory requirements.

Together, these evidence sets allow compatibility to be assessed across dimensions that matter. A pairing may be compatible outright. It may be conditional, requiring specific additional documentation or technical adaptations. Or it may not be compatible without more fundamental changes to one or both operating models.

That assessment does not replace legal, regulatory or commercial review. It is not a regulatory approval, certification, licence or legal passporting right. But it creates a disciplined starting point. The whitepaper’s illustrative application suggests that integration effort could be reduced by 60–70%, depending on jurisdiction, asset type, regulatory context and participant operating model.

Instead of beginning each listing from scratch, participants work from a common set of questions, evidence and compatibility logic. That is a structural shift in how secondary market development gets done.

From fragmented listings to connected markets

The next phase of tokenised markets will not be defined only by the number of assets issued. It will be defined by whether those assets can move across venues and jurisdictions with greater predictability.

If every issuer-venue pairing continues to require bespoke legal discovery, technical mapping and compliance review, secondary market development will remain slow, expensive and fragmented. Multi-venue listing will be hard to justify. Liquidity will remain concentrated in isolated environments. Investors will continue to face limited access after initial issuance.The industry does not need to remove every difference between operating models. That is neither realistic nor desirable. It needs a way to make those differences legible.

The GRADE Issuer-Venue Eligibility Passport is a step towards that next phase. Further work will be needed: liquidity mechanics, collateral routing, multi-venue settlement and market-making across different tokenised operating models all remain open questions. But the first step is to stop treating every listing as a one-off exercise. Issuance creates the asset. Portability determines whether it can circulate.