We offer 3 tokenization frameworks
We worked on ~50 tokenization projects over the last 8 years and summarised our experience in 3 frameworks. They serve different needs and therefore have own pros and cons.
Private L1 BlockchainTokenD
Enterprise-level ecosystem – frontend, native apps/SDK, bridges, fiat onramp, audit node
Full control over fees, limits, permissions, consensus
High level of flexibility
No native token
Pros
Specific expertise of a security team
Smart contracts can’t be written by users
High maintenance costs of 2-3 FTE for 10k+ active users, 3-5 FTE for 100k+ active users
Open source, but license requires our maintenance
Needs to be considered
L2 EVMTokenE
Enterprise dApp platform with own web3 wallet and bridge
EVM compatible (can be launched as a fork or L2/rollup)
Ability to embed existing dApps from EVM ecosystem
Widespread technology stack
Pros
Decisions should be made about tokenomics, consensus and validators
Maintenance costs of
1-2 FTE for 10k+ active users,
2-3 FTE for 100k+ active usersOpen source, currently license is free after KYB
Needs to be considered
Fully On-chain FrameworkTokenF
Fully onchain EVM set of smart contracts (no-backend/servers)
ERC-20 compatible
MIT license codebase
Easy to use and maintain (0.5-1 FTE for a system, but limit only whatever EVM supports)
Pros
Cost of deployment depends on the selected EVM network
Users need to pay for every transaction with native network tokens
Lowest level of flexibility -
fully dependent EVM network conditions/requirements
Needs to be considered
In a way, you can think of TokenD as a lightweight Corda, TokenE as Quorum/Arbitrum Orbit, TokenF as our version of T-REX
Disclaimer: We are not experts in legal, accounting or marketing part of tokenization (which in our opinion are now responsible for 90% of success of the project). We have a very specific set of requirements regarding who we could onboard as a client for a tokenization project, so we reserve a right not to respond for incoming requests.