On May 18, 2026, London and Washington wrote down two distinctly different regulatory stances on the same calendar: on one side, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England (BOE) teamed up to launch a public consultation on the tokenized wholesale financial market, bringing tokenized securities, post-trade infrastructure, prudent regulation, tokenized collateral, and settlement tools into discussion, essentially publicly announcing the intention to “build the tracks before letting the trains run” for the next generation of market infrastructure; on the other side, the leadership of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee pressed President Trump the same day to quickly nominate candidates to fill the four vacant seats on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and warned that if the CLARITY Act, aimed at expanding the CFTC's regulatory authority over crypto assets, were passed, the current institutional configuration would struggle to handle the additional responsibilities. One side is proactively drawing a regulatory blueprint at the institutional level, attempting to attract market-making brokers, clearing and settlement institutions, custodians, and on-chain infrastructure providers to move their businesses onto a “compliance track” with predictable rules; the other is caught in the tug-of-war over “whether to expand authority, how much to expand, and who will actually do the work,” making it difficult for the entire market to form stable expectations regarding the future density of rules and enforcement in the U.S. Under this regulatory asymmetry, it is the tokenized financial institutions that move to the decision-making table: they must recalibrate, incorporating location, licensing pathways, and long-term compliance costs into their models, weighing the choice of betting on the UK's “rules-first” regulatory environment or continuing to wait for uncertain answers in the U.S. market, where regulatory capacity and intentions to expand are misaligned.

London Makes the First Move: FCA and the Bank of England Jointly Outline Tokenization Blueprint

On May 18, London provided its answer: the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England no longer tested the waters with “principled speeches” but directly launched a joint public consultation aimed at the tokenized wholesale financial market. The document explicitly includes tokenized securities, post-trade infrastructure, prudent regulatory requirements, and tokenized collateral and settlement tools in the same regulatory draft, pointing directly at market-making brokers, clearing and settlement institutions, custodians, post-trade service providers, and related on-chain infrastructure providers, constituting the entire wholesale chain. For these institutions, it is no longer a question of “whether to go on-chain” but rather a practical choice of “under what regulatory terms to go on-chain.”

More critically, this consultation has been directly incorporated by UK officials into their digital financial market strategy, positioning it as not a new licensing system but rather embedding tokenization into existing regulatory tracks, thereby filling the gray areas of imagination. Regulatory authorities explicitly stated in public comments that significant opportunities exist for tokenization in post-trade processes and collateral management—faster settlement and more refined collateral management are seen as levers to enhance the efficiency of the entire wholesale market, but the prerequisite is to bring them under the purview of prudent regulation. The signal released is “encouraging experimentation under risk control”: those willing to be the first pilots under this regulatory blueprint will have the opportunity to occupy the regulatory heights of tokenized wholesale financial infrastructure in London.

Who is Included in the Regulatory Framework: Broker Custody and On-chain Infrastructure

Looking down the wholesale business chain, the consultation document highlights “post-trade infrastructure” as one of the key focuses, essentially bringing the clearing, settlement, custody, and various post-trade service providers that market-making brokers connect with into the spotlight. In the past, these institutions could describe on-chain pilots as “internal technology upgrades” or “edge innovations,” but now, once they enter the mainstream processes of the wholesale market in the forms of tokenized securities, tokenized collateral, and settlement tools, they are viewed as critical nodes that need to undergo regulatory scrutiny, rather than as technical laboratories operating in a regulatory gray area.

More critical changes lie in regulatory classification. UK regulators do not intend to create an entirely new licensing regime specifically for tokenization, but rather lean towards incorporating tokenized assets and related infrastructure into the existing framework: whoever undertakes functions such as clearing, settlement, custody, and collateral management in a tokenized environment must transform their business structure to meet existing licensing, capital, and prudent regulatory requirements. Including prudent regulation in the scope of the consultation implies that capital adequacy ratios, liquidity management, and risk management indicators will extend to on-chain links along with business functions. Custody and staking platforms will also face the binary choice of “whether to outsource technology or constitute substantial financial infrastructure.” For those on-chain platforms that consider themselves “technology service providers,” once classified as wholesale market infrastructure, even if they do not target retail investors, they will have to comply with the same regulatory responsibilities and survival thresholds as traditional core financial intermediaries in London.

Washington's Bottleneck: Four Vacant Seats Hold Back the CFTC

Compared to London’s public consultation to “prefabricate tracks” in the tokenized wholesale market, Washington’s problem is more fundamental: there is no one to drive the regulatory train. As of the time of writing this report, there are four vacant commissioner seats in the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and in an agency where commissioner voting is the core decision-making mechanism, such a gap directly raises doubts about its regulatory and enforcement capabilities. Ironically, during this vacancy period, Congress is attempting to pass the CLARITY Act to expand the CFTC’s authority in the crypto asset domain, creating a mismatch of “rising power expectations and declining personnel configuration.”

On May 18, 2026, the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee, one of the main oversight bodies for the CFTC, chose to publicize the issue with a joint letter—this letter was directly addressed to President Trump, with the core demand being a simple message: to swiftly nominate candidates to fill the four vacant seats on the CFTC before the possible passage of the CLARITY Act. The letter pressured with a bipartisan collaboration tone while explicitly stating that if this legislation aimed at expanding crypto asset regulatory authority is indeed passed, given the current staffing and preparedness of the CFTC, “it is not yet fully prepared.” For U.S. institutions related to tokenization and crypto, this not only means uncertainty about who will set the rules and how law enforcement will be conducted in the future, but also signifies that at the same time that London clearly delineated the boundaries, Washington, due to long-term vacant committee positions, has weakened its authority in rule-making and enforcement, making compliance routes worth betting on the U.S. version itself a new uncertainty.

Transatlantic Regulatory Discrepancy: How Institutions and Platforms Choose Locations

While the London regulatory authorities used public consultations to “prefabricate tracks” for the tokenized wholesale financial market, Washington was struggling to discuss how to “enhance” the CFTC, even failing to replenish its basic personnel. This path discrepancy is directly reflected in institutional site selection models. The UK incorporates this joint consultation from the FCA and the Bank of England into its “Digital Financial Market Strategy,” explicitly indicating a framework to be established around tokenized securities, post-trade infrastructure, prudent regulation, collateral, and settlement tools, essentially drawing boundaries, subject obligations, and prudent requirements on paper before inviting the market to experiment within the established track. For global banks, clearing and settlement institutions, custodians, and on-chain infrastructure providers, London thus appears as a “modelable” jurisdiction: regulatory expectations are visible, although the licensing pathways and business boundaries have not fully landed, they can at least be written into mid to long-term planning, making it especially suitable as a preferred pilot for tokenized security issuance, on-chain collateral management, and post-trade services.

In contrast, on the same day, the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee in the U.S. was still writing letters urging the President to fill the four vacant seats on the CFTC and openly questioning whether the CFTC has the capability to fulfill new responsibilities in light of the potential expansion of its crypto asset regulatory authority under the CLARITY Act. The legislative intention is to “expand authority,” but the institutional reality is “insufficient personnel and preparation,” compounded by the unclear progress of the bill review and boundary of powers and responsibilities, leading project teams and trading platforms to face a highly uncertain combined risk in the U.S. regarding who will regulate, how enforcement will happen, and when regulations will be implemented. The result of this regulatory vacuum is that core technology and operational infrastructure are more likely to prioritize locations with clearer rules, while viewing the U.S. as a subsequent access or branch market. Under this discrepancy, institutions must not only recalibrate the sequence of license applications between London and the U.S. but also reconstruct cross-border business architectures—deciding which functions to center on nodes where regulatory blueprints have been drawn, and which to only reach uncertain markets through interfaces while finely splitting compliance costs under different regulatory environments across various customer segments.

Regulatory Vacuum and Testing Ground: The Next Bet for Tokenized Finance

Following this “functional outsourcing” thought process forward, regulations in the UK and U.S. are forming two entirely different betting strategies: the UK, through this round of public consultation initiated jointly by the FCA and the Bank of England, pulls tokenized securities, post-trade infrastructure, prudent regulation, and collateral and settlement tools into the same blueprint, locking in regulatory direction through programmed Q&A; the U.S., however, exhibits a clear mismatch between the legislative impulse of the CLARITY Act potentially expanding CFTC authority and the reality of four vacant commissioner seats. For institutions, platforms, and professional users, what truly determines the business location and function split is not how many favorable news pieces exist, but whether the regulatory rhythm is predictable and whether the rule boundaries can close within an acceptable timeframe—when the UK public consultation will end and be transformed into formal rules, when Congress will advance the CLARITY Act, and when the White House will fill the CFTC commissioner seats, there is currently no clear timetable, and the transatlantic regulatory vacuum and testing ground state will persist for some time. In this uncertain landscape, the next crucial step lies not in betting on which location has a more “friendly” short-term attitude, but in closely monitoring the details of respective regulatory texts concerning license classifications, capital requirements, and cross-border business feasibility, as what will truly redraw the landscape of tokenized finance will be how these provisions land into specific institutional structures and jurisdictional choices.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。