Tokenization projects today are built vertical by vertical, each solving its own problem in its own silo. But tokenizing an asset on its own doesn't unlock what tokenization is actually for with the real benefit, from atomic settlement to capital efficiency, only being realised once the whole chain is interoperable end to end, not just the asset sitting on it. If the end state is a genuinely tokenized financial system, the question for any country or institution becomes how to build toward it without locking in the fragmentation a siloed approach creates. Tokenization in Finance: Evidence and Implementation Pathways starts from the premise that avoids tokenizing in a bubble and offers a playbook that lets a country begin from its own ambition, mapping not just what it takes to tokenize an asset, but the full chain needed to trade it efficiently and interoperably with everything else.

This roundtable shares what a year of open-call research has surfaced with a decision-making framework for countries looking to embark on their tokenization initiatives, problem statements from practitioners weighing key options and risks and worked examples showing the framework applied in practice. Participants will also look ahead to 2027, exploring the next wave of problem statements and identifying the coordination, partnerships and policy support needed to move from evidence to adoption across institutions and jurisdictions.

The GDF Global Stablecoin Regulatory Playbook, published in January 2026, set out shared terminology and outcome-based principles for stablecoin regulation across jurisdictions. The subsequent report ‘Global Stablecoin Regulatory Frameworks: Closing the Gap’ drawn from insights at the Point Zero Forum in June 2026 took this work a step further. It mapped where regulators already agree and isolated the one problem that domestic frameworks were never designed to solve: how a stablecoin issued under one jurisdiction's rules can circulate safely under another's.

The report framed two models for scaling beyond domestic rules. The first keeps issuance local while seeking to preserve a unified token, through multiple licensed entities issuing a fungible stablecoin under comparable standards. The second permits a foreign-issued stablecoin to operate through recognition based on comparable, rather than identical, regulatory outcomes. It also recorded differing regulatory perspectives on the perceived risk associated with multi-issuance, particularly correlated redemption pressure and the resilience of a stablecoin’s fungibility under stress.

The roundtable convenes policymakers, global standard-setters and industry leaders to examine how these models could operate in practice. When is multi-issuance necessary to meet host-jurisdiction objectives? When can unilateral or mutual recognition provide sufficient safeguards? Where a combination of the two is appropriate, how should responsibility for reserves, redemption, supervision and crisis management be allocated? The session will focus on the conditions needed to make each approach workable while preserving fungibility and avoiding unnecessary regulatory fragmentation.