63 market can work without a reliable form of digital cash. If tokenized assets are meant to trade and settle automatically, the market will need payment tools that satisfy rules on reserves, redemption, disclosure, and safety. Recent US developments suggest that regulated stablecoins could play that role. Israelis thinking seriously about digital finance should therefore focus not only on tokenized assets, but also on the money layer that makes those assets usable. Some compliance checks may move into the software itself One of the more interesting US ideas is that some compliance requirements may be built into the asset and the platform from the start, instead of being handled only afterward through manual checks. In recent public remarks, Chair Atkins pointed to examples such as resale limits written directly into the code of tokenized securities. US commentary has also highlighted privacyprotecting tools, including zero-knowledge proofs, that can confirm a person meets certain rules without exposing all of that person’s private data. The broad point is that compliance may become part of the design, not just part of the paperwork. That idea should resonate in Israel, where strong products often emerge when lawyers, technologists, and operations teams work together early. Recent US thinking encourages firms to build monitoring, eligibility checks, transfer controls, and reviewable records into their systems from the outset. This is not a loose or deregulatory approach. It is an attempt to enforce clear rules using tools that fit digital systems better. For Israel, that means one of the smartest competitive advantages may be to build products that make compliance easier to verify, not harder. This also helps explain why regulators may be more willing to allow experimentation than before. If a firm can show that key rules are built into its system, that transfers can be limited appropriately, and that regulators can review what happened, it has a stronger case for special relief or pilot treatment. That does not remove risk, but it can narrow the gap between innovation and trust. Israeli businesses should take that as a practical lesson: design the controls early, and make them visible. US regulators are starting to work together more closely Another development Israeli clients should watch is the growing coordination between US regulators themselves. The new SEC-CFTC memorandum of understanding is meant to help senior officials consult earlier, share information, train together, and cooperate on questions that touch both agencies. Its priority areas include product definitions, clearing and collateral, crypto assets, firms overseen by both agencies, simpler reporting, and coordinated examinations and enforcement. That matters because tokenized finance often sits in the gray areas between older regulatory silos. For Israeli firms with US business, this means that relying on gaps between regulators is becoming a weaker strategy. If an activity touches both securities and commodities rules, or if a business falls under more than one registration regime, the agencies are signaling that they plan to coordinate earlier and more closely. The practical takeaway is that firms subject to more than one regulator should expect more information sharing and, in some cases, joint examinations. Israeli institutions dealing with US partners or US investors should therefore build governance and disclosure with combined regulatory scrutiny in mind. This also carries a broader lesson for Israel. Tokenization does not fit neatly into one box, so it is hard to regulate well if securities, banking, payments, derivatives, and infrastructure are all treated separately. Recent US experience shows that the hardest problems appear where these systems overlap. Israeli policymakers and market participants should therefore think about joinedup rules, not isolated pilots. What Israeli clients should take from this So what should you take from all this? First, any tokenization project should start with a basic legal question, not a marketing question. Does the digital version give the buyer the same real rights as the traditional asset, including ownership, transfer rights, and protection if something goes wrong? If not, it may still have value, but it should not be treated as a simple substitute for the original asset. Second, think about the whole system, not just the token. A workable digital market needs ways to issue assets, record ownership, control transfers, accept collateral, move money, and give regulators visibility. Recent US moves matter because they show those pieces starting to connect. A project that focuses only on issuing the token may look impressive in a demonstration but still fail in a real regulated market. US — CRYPTOCURRENCIES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=