One of the most important distinctions in real-world asset tokenisation is the difference between issuing a token and creating liquidity.
Shane Ian Murphy, Co-Founder and Partner of Tri-Party Tokenisation, has identified that distinction as central to the company’s approach to asset-backed digital structures.
What token issuance actually achieves
Token issuance can create a digital record or representation of defined rights associated with an underlying asset. Depending on the legal structure and technology used, it may support recordkeeping, controlled transfers and more efficient administration.
But issuing a token does not, by itself, establish title, independently verify an asset, create an investor market or guarantee that a holder can sell the token.
Why the underlying asset matters
For commodity-backed concepts such as nickel or copper, the starting point is the physical material and the supporting evidence: identification, quantity, quality, ownership, storage, inspection and valuation. For a note-backed structure, the instrument’s terms, authenticity, issuer obligations and legal rights are equally fundamental.
The digital representation must be consistent with those rights. If the commercial or legal documentation is incomplete, blockchain technology cannot repair that gap.
Liquidity requires additional infrastructure
A credible liquidity route requires potential counterparties, appropriate legal permissions, transaction arrangements, risk assessment and a realistic economic reason for market participants to engage. Depending on the instrument and jurisdiction, restrictions on transfer and investor eligibility may also apply.
This is why liquidity should be evaluated separately from token creation. A digital asset may be technically transferable while remaining commercially illiquid.
Building around the whole process
Tri-Party Tokenisation’s work spans real-world asset concepts, including medium-term note structures and commodity-backed tokenisation. The broader objective is to examine how verification, custody, legal structuring, digital issuance and possible liquidity pathways can fit together.
For Shane Ian Murphy, the opportunity is in developing disciplined infrastructure rather than relying on the novelty of the token itself. The strongest propositions are those where the underlying economics and documentation remain credible even without the digital layer.
