News related to
proposed tokenised share

The Securities and Exchange Board of India is examining whether companies that list only debt securities should continue to face disclosure and compliance obligations similar to those imposed on equity-listed companies. The review is part of a wider effort to deepen the corporate bond market, where heavy reliance on private placements, limited retail participation and concentration among highly rated issuers have kept market breadth below policy ambitions.

Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey, who took charge of the regulator in March 2025, has signalled that the next phase of reform will focus on making the debt market more usable for issuers and investors without weakening safeguards. A pilot framework for tokenising corporate bonds is expected to be launched within six to nine months, testing whether distributed-ledger technology can improve settlement speed, servicing, traceability and operational efficiency.

The proposed easing would be especially relevant for entities that raise money only through listed non-convertible securities and do not have listed shares. Such issuers have argued that several provisions under the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements framework were designed primarily for equity-market governance, where public shareholders carry voting and ownership rights. Debt investors, by contrast, are focused mainly on credit quality, repayment capacity, covenant compliance and timely interest payments.

The regulatory challenge is to separate investor-useful disclosure from procedural duplication. Quarterly financials, credit-rating updates, default alerts, asset-cover statements, related-party exposure and material event reporting remain central to creditor protection. Requirements linked more closely to equity ownership, board-shareholder dynamics and public float may be reviewed where they impose costs disproportionate to the risks faced by bondholders.

India’s corporate bond market has expanded sharply but remains structurally narrow. Net outstanding corporate bonds rose from ₹17.5 trillion in FY2014-15 to about ₹53.6 trillion in FY2024-25, with fresh issuances touching ₹9.9 trillion during 2024-25. The market accounts for roughly 15-16 per cent of GDP, far below deeper Asian and developed markets, and is still dominated by highly rated financial and public-sector issuers.

Private placements remain the preferred route for large borrowers, while public bond issues account for only a small share of overall issuance. That pattern has kept institutional investors at the centre of the market and limited participation by individuals, smaller corporates and lower-rated issuers. For policymakers, the issue is not simply market size but market diversity, liquidity and the ability of bonds to finance infrastructure, housing, manufacturing and growth-stage companies at competitive rates.

Tokenisation is being positioned as a market-infrastructure experiment rather than a replacement for existing bond-market systems. Under such a model, a bond can be represented as a digital token on a permissioned ledger, with ownership transfers, coupon payments and redemption records updated through automated processes. A well-designed pilot could reduce reconciliation gaps, improve audit trails and allow faster post-trade processing while preserving regulatory oversight.

Global fixed-income markets have been exploring tokenisation for similar reasons. Automation through smart contracts can simplify issuance, settlement and corporate actions, while better record keeping can lower operational risk. The benefits, however, depend on legal clarity, interoperability with depositories and clearing systems, cyber-security standards and clear rules on investor rights if technology vendors, wallets or ledger nodes fail.

Sebi’s review also comes amid wider changes in India’s debt-market architecture. Online bond platforms have been brought under regulation, the request-for-quote platform has gained traction, and policymakers are looking at ways to widen access to international debt products through regulated channels. Municipal bonds are also drawing greater attention as cities seek market funding for infrastructure, adding to the broader shift from bank-led financing towards market-based debt.

Investor protection will remain the central test for any relaxation. Lighter disclosure rules could encourage more issuers to list debt securities, but weaker transparency would raise borrowing costs and damage confidence if defaults rise or credit risks are obscured. The most likely outcome is a calibrated framework that retains credit-critical reporting while reducing requirements that do not materially affect bondholder decisions.

The Bank of England has committed to implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins by the end of 2026, signalling a significant shift in the United Kingdom’s approach to digital assets. According to government and central-bank sources, a formal consultation is scheduled for 10 November and the regulation is expected to align closely with forthcoming U. S. standards.

The framework will establish new standards for so-called “qualifying stablecoins” issued in the UK, stipulating full backing by secure liquid assets held in trust, mandatory redemption at par, and authorisation under the Financial Conduct Authority. For stablecoins deemed systemic—particularly those used for payments at scale—the BoE will assume additional supervisory and resolution responsibilities. The FCA’s Consultation Paper CP25/14 sets out much of this detail.

In public remarks, BoE Governor Andrew Bailey argued that widely-used stablecoins must be regulated in the same way as banks if they function as money-substitutes. He said they should access Bank accounts and adhere to depositor-protection regimes. The BoE itself has described the future payments landscape as one of “multi-money” — where tokenised deposits, central bank money and stablecoins coexist—provided the framework protects trust and financial stability.

The proposed regulatory timetable is part of a broader drive by UK authorities to maintain competitive positioning in global fintech, particularly as stablecoins gain traction in cross-border payments and tokenised-asset ecosystems. Industry experts note that the UK wants to keep pace with U. S. regulation to avoid regulatory arbitrage.

Under the current design, issuers of qualifying stablecoins will need authorisation by the FCA, must safeguard assets backing the coins by placing them in statutory trust arrangements, and maintain daily reconciliation between issued coins and backing assets. The consultation suggests a two-tier backing-asset regime: “core” assets and “expanded” assets subject to extra disclosure and modelling requirements.

From a technical infrastructure perspective, the BoE highlights that stablecoins may reduce the banking sector’s dominance over payments, but that the central bank must remain the settlement asset for systemically important markets. This position underpins the planned consultations and policy work around stablecoins’ role in the UK payments system.

Industry reaction is mixed. Some fintech firms and crypto-asset service providers welcome clarity, saying that clear rules reduce uncertainty and support investment. Others worry that too heavy or complex regulation might deter innovation or prevent start-ups from competing with global incumbents. One blog commentary described the framework as “a huge deal … but a nagging worry that too much focus on compliance might throw a wet blanket on the very innovation they are meant to encourage.”

The stakes are high for tokenised deposit initiatives within the UK banking system. Leading lenders including HSBC, NatWest Group and Lloyds Banking Group are pushing ahead with pilots of tokenised deposits through 2026. Regulators have been clear that although such deposits may be permitted within the current system, the stablecoin regulatory regime must take into account the potential threat of massive deposit flows leaving the banking sector.

One key tension lies in the setting of holding limits. The BoE has proposed initial caps on stablecoin holdings—for individuals perhaps in the order of £10,000 to £20,000—and higher for business entities, on the grounds that a swift migration out of bank deposits could undermine credit flows to households and firms. The caps would remain until the BoE is confident the stablecoin sector does not pose a systemic threat.

In this regulated-fork approach, oversight will be shared: The BoE will supervise systemic stablecoin issuers; the FCA will regulate non-systemic stablecoins and issuers under the regulated activities order. The Treasury has indicated that stablecoin issuance will not, for now, be brought directly into payment-services regulation.