Comparison of Token Issuance Schemes in Japan
ConfidenceLikelyUpdated2026-08-14Review by2027-02-10Sources5Machine-translatedOriginal (JA)
On this page
[!info] TL;DR When issuing real-asset-backed tokens in Japan, there are mainly 3 schemes to choose from.
Scheme A: Crypto Asset Type
- Based on the Payment Services Act (→ Japan Financial Regulation — Legal Framework for Tokens, Crypto Assets, and Payments)
- Listed and distributed by crypto asset exchange operators (CAESP) (see Domestic CEX × deposit tokens / EPI integration strategy — DCJPY / Progmat / JPYC collaboration for the typical CEX-side overview)
- High post-listing liquidity
- Relatively clear regulatory treatment
- Suited to: liquidity-first, utilising existing exchanges
Scheme B: Security Token (ST) Type
- Based on rights represented by electronically recorded transferable securities under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act
- Distributed via PTS (proprietary trading system) or handling operators
- Accessible to institutional investors (reference: RWA (Real World Asset) tokenization × CEX handling)
- Higher compliance burden
- Suited to: institutional investors, large-lot transactions
Scheme C: Trust Type
- Beneficiary-interest tokenisation under the Trust Business Act
- Requires collaboration with a trust bank (see Japan trust-type SC architecture for a similar SC design)
- Strongest investor protection
- High design flexibility but time-consuming to structure
- Suited to: conservative schemes with a trust bank partner
Selection criteria
Scheme selection is determined by:
- Target investor segment (retail vs institutional)
- Liquidity requirements (immediate listing vs long-term hold)
- Tolerance for regulatory compliance costs
- Availability of a partner financial institution
Reference: Japan Financial Regulation — Legal Framework for Tokens, Crypto Assets, and Payments · For the institutional framework on the stablecoin side, see Three-Layer Structure of Japan's Stablecoin Regulatory Regime (JPYC, USDC, Project Pax).
Related
#needs-review
Discovery
Keep reading
Read next
- Formalization Through a Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Licence — A Fact-Checking Framework“Formalization” here means the transition to a state in which authorization has been obtained for a defined regulated activity, legal entity, product, and jurisdiction, allowing a service to...
- HKMA Stablecoin Reserve Requirements · Boundary with FRTBThe following is based on the HKMA's final Supervisory Guideline, not a draft.
- HKMA License Strategic Implications · Tether HK Asymmetric Bet + Mainland China SC Channel2025-08 HKMA Stablecoin Ordinance adopted → 2026-05-21 initial decisions → only two licenses issued (HSBC + Anchorpoint) → major mainland-linked institutions + Tether delayed; for detailed b...
Links here
- Japan's crypto-asset handling-start process · public-source boundaries including BitTradeThe following table presents legal categories based on the FSA registry of crypto-asset exchange service providers, the FSA application guide for electronic-payment-instrument and crypto-ass...
- Three-Layer Structure of Japan's Stablecoin Regulatory Regime (JPYC, USDC, Project Pax)Source note: the registration facts are point-in-time readings of the FSA's funds-transfer provider list and EPI service-provider list, downloaded on 2026-07-30. Platform-role terminology is...
- The 5 -Stage Flow of Third-Party Allotment Capital Raises by Japanese Listed CompaniesClarifying the timing, parties involved, and monitoring points at each stage allows investors and counterparties to identify the current position accurately.