Securitize's Chongwu Du says tokenized finance will settle across a handful of blockchains rather than consolidating onto a single network, pushing back against the recurring thesis that institutional adoption will eventually crown one chain as the default rails for digitized securities.

The remarks from Du, an executive at Securitize — the digital-asset securities firm best known as the transfer agent and tokenization platform behind BlackRock's USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL) — frame interoperability as a structural requirement rather than a transitional inconvenience for the tokenized-finance market.

What does the claim mean for institutional issuance?

Du's position cuts against the "winner-take-most" narrative that has circulated in digital-asset markets for years. Instead of a single settlement layer, tokenized funds, private credit instruments and fund shares will live across several networks simultaneously, with infrastructure — rather than chain selection — becoming the differentiating layer.

That view carries operational weight coming from Securitize. The firm occupies a regulated chokepoint in the tokenization stack: it acts as transfer agent, handles compliance and investor onboarding, and coordinates issuance across networks. If distribution happens on multiple chains, the firms that manage identity, permissions and recordkeeping across those chains gain leverage over the protocols themselves.

For issuers, a multi-chain settlement environment implies:

• Higher integration overhead, since token standards, finality guarantees and compliance tooling differ by network
• Greater emphasis on cross-chain interoperability and messaging infrastructure
• Less pressure to commit issuance to a single ecosystem at launch

Why Securitize's vantage point matters

Securitize has positioned itself as chain-agnostic infrastructure for regulated token issuance, and Du's framing is consistent with that commercial posture. A market that runs on several blockchains rewards the layer that abstracts chain choice away from asset managers — precisely the role Securitize has built its business around.

The comment also reflects how institutional demand has actually developed. Large asset managers experimenting with tokenized funds have generally prioritized regulatory certainty, investor eligibility controls and transfer-agent recordkeeping over network loyalty. Chain selection has tended to follow where compliant infrastructure already exists, rather than the reverse.

A fragmented settlement environment does impose costs. Cross-chain token movements for restricted securities require that compliance state — whitelists, lockups, jurisdictional restrictions — travel with the asset. That places a premium on token standards that enforce transfer restrictions natively and on interoperability protocols capable of carrying that metadata intact.

What comes next for multi-chain tokenization?

Du's assessment suggests the competitive question in tokenized finance is shifting from "which chain wins" to "which infrastructure controls issuance and compliance across all of them." As more regulated funds come on-chain and as interoperability standards mature, expect issuers and transfer agents to treat multi-network distribution as the default design assumption rather than an edge case.