The roundtable session was moderated by CIEL CEO Chung-Chia Huang, joined by panelists Deputy Director Chao-Hung Chen, Deputy Director Yueh-Ping Yang, Prof. Ying-Shin Tsai, and Assoc. Prof. Yi-Chen Lai.

Legal Characterization of Tokenization

CEO Chung-Chia Huang opened the discussion by raising a core question: Should the legal nature of tokens be determined by the underlying rights they represent or by the electronic records on the blockchain itself? Deputy Director Chen opined that tokens often sit between claims and property rights, functioning more like “value carriers.” He noted that the current international trend increasingly relies on the concept of “control” to determine ownership. This elevates the role of system operators in identifying and transferring rights. Deputy Director Yang observed that domestic courts tend to treat tokens as movables, while academics consider them intangible assets; the legal categorization remains unsettled. Associate Prof. Lai further reminded the audience that whether tokens possess exclusive control is still unclear—reflecting the ongoing evolution of their legal nature.

Regulatory Adjustments and Tokenized Payment Instruments

On the regulatory front, panelists emphasized the need to consider emerging risks within the existing legal and regulatory framework. Deputy Director Yang explained that if a tokenized payment instrument retains its original functional characteristics, existing regulations may continue to apply. However, when market volatility, ledger unpredictability, or anonymity introduce new risks, regulatory reinforcement becomes necessary. Many jurisdictions regulate stablecoins under frameworks similar to electronic payments, illustrating this approach. He also noted that tokenized payments exert limited impact on monetary policy, as funds ultimately settle back within the banking system.

Cross-Border Finality and AML Challenges

During the open Q&A, participants first asked how to determine finality in cross-border transactions. Deputy Director Yang explained that if a single stablecoin dominates the market, its issuer can define finality within its system. However, in a more diverse market, financial institutions probably can negotiate common principles to define finality through contracts. Globally, two approaches coexist: one relying on the distributed ledger itself as the basis for finality, and another centered on “control,” which is conceptually closer to possession.

Regarding AML, when smart contracts automatically settle transactions to blacklisted addresses, risk allocation often depends on contractual arrangements. However, if blacklist information relies on international databases, information asymmetry may arise—posing an important regulatory challenge for Taiwan.

Global Trends in Tokenization

Finally, audience asked about international use cases and trends for tokenizing financial and non-financial assets. Deputy Director Chen noted that global regulation remains fragmented, with high-value financial assets more likely to be tokenized first. Assoc. Prof. Lai highlighted Japan’s experimentation with lower-value assets—such as alcohol products, GameFi items, and hotel usage rights—to reduce public concerns, suggesting that tokenization may expand gradually from everyday-use scenarios.

CIEL will continue advancing research on RWA, tokenized payment instruments, and Web 3.0 financial regulation. Through interdisciplinary analysis across civil law, criminal law, financial regulation, and international standards, we aim to offer concrete policy recommendations. Our goal is to help Taiwan build a corporate legal framework that balances innovation with stability amid rapid technological and regulatory transformation, while strengthening CIEL’s role as a key platform for industry–government–academia dialogue and legal innovation.