Constitutive vs. pointer tokenization
Most "tokenized securities" today are pointer tokens. The official cap table lives at a transfer agent, on Carta, or in a law firm's filing cabinet. The chain is a notification layer. Onchain transfers are not the legal transfer; they are a request to update an offchain register that the issuer or its agents may decline to honour. The blockchain does no essential work and could be removed without changing the underlying legal reality.
cyberCORPs takes the opposite approach.
The constitutive move
Each cyberCORP's governing documents — certificate of incorporation and bylaws, operating agreement, articles of association, partnership agreement, fund constitutional documents, or analogous instrument under the entity's governing law — designate the onchain contract system as the entity's official register of holders, with the fungible scrip layer authorised by the same instruments.
The legal state-transition function and the chain state-transition function are unified: changing onchain state is the legal change. There is no offchain register to reconcile against, no transfer agent to instruct, and no possibility of the chain and the legal record diverging.
Why this is possible under Delaware law
DGCL §224 explicitly permits any books and records, including the stock ledger, to be kept in any form, including a blockchain, provided the records can be converted to clearly legible paper form and provide information required by other DGCL sections (§158 share-certificate requirements, §219 stockholder list rights, etc.).
DGCL §155 authorises scrip — meaning the cyberSCRIP layer is itself authorised as a form of the security, not as a synthetic derivative.
DGCL §158 sets the information that a certificate must convey (issuer name, holder name, units, class, restrictions, signatures). cyberCERT metadata encodes all of these directly.
DGCL §202 permits restrictive legends; cyberCERT extensions encode them.
DGCL §219 governs stockholder-list rights; the cyberCORP register is queryable onchain by anyone and can be exported to any required format.
Why this is possible elsewhere
Delaware is the most fully worked-out reference. Comparable provisions or contractual workarounds exist under Delaware LLC law (operating agreement autonomy), Cayman corporate and SPC regimes, BVI corporate law, English corporate law, and partnership / fund statutes.
The protocol does not assume any specific statute. It assumes only that the entity's governing law permits the onchain register to be designated as authoritative through the entity's governing documents — and offers entity-type and jurisdiction as configuration on the CyberCorp contract.
What this lets you do
A cyberCERT is your interest in the entity as it lives in the official records. Not a pointer.
A cyberSCRIP is the same security in scrip form. Not a wrapper, not a derivative, not a receipt for a receipt.
You can hand a regulator, an auditor, or a court the chain itself and ask what the entity's holder register is. The answer is in the bytes.
This is the basis of every other design decision the protocol makes.
Further reading
SEC, January 2026 Joint Staff Statement on Tokenized Securities.
Last updated
Was this helpful?