ONINO vs Tokeny: Which Platform Fits Your Issuance Model?

ONINO and Tokeny answer the same question with two different operating models, which is why most ONINO vs Tokeny comparisons start in the wrong place. The short answer: choose Tokeny to own institutional, multi-jurisdiction tokenization infrastructure; choose ONINO to run branded EU raises under MiFID II, eWpG, VermAnlG or ECSPR on an operated white-label stack. Tokeny is a Luxembourg-based tokenization software provider, founded in 2017, that supplies compliance infrastructure: the ERC-3643 token standard it authored and the T-REX platform issuers assemble agents, custodians and distribution around. Tokeny has been part of Apex Group since a majority-stake acquisition announced on 21 May 2025. ONINO is a German white-label issuance platform, founded in 2021 and based in Karlsruhe, that supplies the issuance software for regulated offerings: subordinated loans and participation rights as Vermögensanlagen under the VermAnlG, plus bonds, equity and funds as securities, with registrar and custody partners pre-integrated. The platform is modular across issuance modes: the same stack runs instruments non-tokenized, as security tokens, or as crypto securities (Kryptowertpapiere) under the eWpG. Any useful Tokeny Solutions comparison turns on the choice between toolkit and turnkey, and between token-only and modular, not on token standards.

ONINO vs Tokeny: at-a-glance comparison (all figures as of July 2026)

What is Tokeny, and who owns it?

Tokeny is a Luxembourg tokenization software provider founded in 2017. It authored the ERC-3643 permissioned token standard and sells the T-REX Platform, a no-code issuance and lifecycle SaaS, alongside the T-REX Engine API. Tokeny's own figures, as stated in July 2026, put 32 billion USD tokenized across 120+ customers in 60+ jurisdictions. Apex Group announced a majority stake on 21 May 2025 with a stated path to 100% over three years, so as of July 2026 Tokeny operates as part of Apex Group. Tokeny is not a custodian and does not maintain securities registers itself; it supplies the infrastructure its clients and their appointed agents operate.

How do ONINO and Tokeny differ in regulatory approach?

ONINO and Tokeny operate at different layers of the same regulatory stack: Tokeny works at the token-transfer layer via ERC-3643, ONINO at the securities-law layer via eWpG, VermAnlG and ECSPR. ERC-3643 is a technical standard that controls how token transfers are restricted; eWpG and its sibling regimes are securities law that controls how the instrument legally exists. The two answer different questions, which is why "eWpG vs ERC-3643" is a category error, not a real choice.

What is ERC-3643? The permissioned token standard

ERC-3643 is an open-source token standard for regulated securities, originally called T-REX (Token for Regulated EXchanges).

• Tokeny created the standard in 2018 as T-REX and contributed it as an open standard; it was formalized as ERC-3643 in 2021.

• The ERC3643 Association, a Luxembourg non-profit that lists more than 100 members as of July 2026, governs the standard today; DTCC joined the Association in March 2025.

• An ERC-3643 transfer only executes if the receiver's identity is verified on-chain via ONCHAINID in the Identity Registry and the rules in a modular compliance contract pass.

Why this matters for Tokeny: Writing the standard, and now sitting inside a fund-administration group after Apex Group's majority-stake acquisition of 21 May 2025, are advantages a competitor cannot simply build.

The German legal framework: eWpG

The eWpG is Germany's Electronic Securities Act of 2021, last amended in 2026. An entry in an electronic securities register replaces the paper certificate, with identical legal effect.

As of July 2026, the eWpG covers three instrument groups:

• Bearer bonds

• Contractual-form fund units (added via KryptoFAV, 2022)

• Shares of an AG (added via ZuFinG, December 2023)

Typical unsecuritized participation rights and subordinated loans are not eWpG securities; they are Vermögensanlagen under the VermAnlG. Two lighter routes exist alongside the full VermAnlG prospectus:

• VermAnlG + VIB: prospectus-free up to €6M per issuer per 12 months under § 2a VermAnlG, placed exclusively through a licensed internet service platform (Internet-Dienstleistungsplattform) providing investment broking or advice, with per-investor caps of €1,000 to €25,000

• ECSPR crowdfunding: up to €5M per project owner per 12 months via a licensed crowdfunding service provider, with an EU passport; fits loan-based instruments such as Nachrangdarlehen, while typical unsecuritized Genussrechte usually fall outside ECSPR scope

A crypto security under the eWpG additionally needs a BaFin-licensed crypto securities registrar. As of July 2026, the crypto-register provisions sit in §§ 16 to 23 eWpG, following the renumbering by the StoFöG in February 2026; sources still citing the older section numbering are out of date.

Luxembourg's track: Blockchain Law IV (December 2024) introduced the control agent role and extended DLT issuance to equity securities. ONINO's EU tokenization regulation hub maps these regimes in more detail.

Where both vendors agree: MiCAR doesn't apply

Tokenized securities are not governed by MiCAR. Crypto-assets that qualify as MiFID II financial instruments are excluded under Article 2(4)(a) and stay under securities law: MiFID II, the Prospectus Regulation, and national regimes like eWpG and VermAnlG.

Why the register, not the token standard, decides

A German crypto security needs a licensed register no matter which token standard mints the token. So the useful question isn't which standard wins, it's how much of the licensed chain you have to source and appoint yourself. That's exactly where ONINO and Tokeny diverge.

Who holds custody and the securities register with ONINO and Tokeny?

Tokeny is not a custodian, and on Germany's eWpG route the crypto securities register is a separate, BaFin-licensed function; those two facts settle most custody questions on an ONINO vs Tokeny shortlist. Tokeny is deliberately wallet-agnostic and non-custodial. The platform integrates third-party custodians and non-custodial wallets, and on the T-REX Platform only the token holder can sign transactions, so neither the issuer nor the platform can act on a holder's behalf. Custody and register responsibility sit with the issuer and the agents the issuer appoints.

In Tokeny's model, the issuer, or an appointed agent such as a registrar or transfer agent, maintains the investor register; the on-chain Identity Registry and admin panel serve as register tooling. ONCHAINID, the identity layer, allows tokens to be recovered to a new wallet after the holder's identity is confirmed, which removes the lost-key objection without making Tokeny a custodian. Tokeny supplies the register tooling; the register responsibility itself never leaves the issuer's side of the table.

On Germany's eWpG route, register responsibility carries a licence. Maintaining a crypto securities register is a financial service under §1(1a) sentence 2 no. 8 KWG that requires BaFin authorisation and minimum initial capital of €150,000. Whoever maintains the register for a German crypto security must hold that authorisation, regardless of the token standard used.

ONINO answers the same question with pre-integration rather than assembly. ONINO is a software provider and holds no BaFin permission of its own: the crypto securities register is maintained by a BaFin-authorised registrar, and that partner holds the permission. What differs between the two vendors is how much of that chain the issuer has to source. With Tokeny, the issuer sources and appoints the register and custody chain itself. With ONINO, those partners are already integrated and the workflows are native to eWpG, VermAnlG and ECSPR. Whether an issuer needs its own permission depends on the instrument and offer size, not on which platform it uses. For most shortlists, that is the whole difference.

How modular are ONINO and Tokeny across issuance modes?

Tokeny supports one issuance mode: every instrument on the T-REX platform exists as an ERC-3643 security token. ONINO supports three modes on the same white-label stack: non-tokenized classical instruments, tokenized security tokens, and crypto securities (Kryptowertpapiere) under the eWpG. That modality difference is the second axis of this comparison, and it is the one feature matrices usually miss.

• Non-tokenized classical instruments. Subordinated loans, participation rights, bonds and fund interests run through the branded portal with a fully digital subscription process, KYC/AML onboarding and lifecycle management, and no token anywhere in the setup.

• Tokenized security tokens. Instruments such as tokenized Genussrechte sit outside the eWpG register requirement; the token adds transferability and fractionalization without changing the instrument's legal nature as a Vermögensanlage.

• Crypto securities (Kryptowertpapiere). The eWpG route for digital securities, where the register is maintained by a BaFin-authorised registrar; that partner holds the permission, not ONINO.

The asset-class range runs on the same stack: Nachrangdarlehen and Genussrechte as Vermögensanlagen, bonds and equity as securities, up to institutional fund structures, with the mode chosen per issuance rather than per platform. The practical payoff is the upgrade path: an issuer can launch a classical non-tokenized raise first, then add tokenization or move up to an eWpG instrument later without re-platforming. On Tokeny there is no path below the token layer, because the toolkit starts where the token begins. That focus cuts both ways: for institutions that already know the destination is institutional ERC-3643 tokens across many jurisdictions, Tokeny's single-mode depth, and the ecosystem behind the standard, is exactly what they are buying.

Which platform is stronger for white-label issuance and investor portals?

ONINO and Tokeny both offer white-label capability, but the weighting differs: for Tokeny, white-label deployment is one listed capability of an institutional platform, while for ONINO the white-label tokenization platform is the core product. That difference in weighting is the clearest split between them. Modularity adds a second dimension: because the ONINO stack is modular, one branded portal runs tokenized and non-tokenized offerings side by side, with multiple parallel deals in a marketplace setup.

Tokeny's stack comprises the T-REX Platform (a no-code SaaS), the T-REX Engine (an API for embedding tokenization into existing systems) and DINO, a distribution network initiative. White-label and API deployment are listed platform capabilities, and Tokeny achieved SOC 2 Type II compliance in March 2025. The reference list Tokeny publishes is genuinely institutional: SkyBridge Capital's $300M hedge fund tokenization on Avalanche (August 2025), Fasanara's tokenized money market fund, ABN AMRO's €5M digital green bond and a partnership with AMINA Bank. For multi-jurisdiction institutional fund tokenization at scale, Tokeny's ecosystem is the deeper bench, and that concession should stand in any honest comparison.

The ONINO tokenization platform approaches white-label from the operator's side. The issuer gets a branded investor portal on its own domain, automated KYC/AML and suitability onboarding, jurisdiction-specific workflows and full lifecycle management; per ONINO, a white-label environment is live in under 24 hours and supports financing structures in 24+ EU countries and Switzerland. The issuer keeps its brand, its investor data and its economics; ONINO's own framing is "ONINO is infrastructure; you bring your deals and your investors." That bundle, portal, onboarding, compliance workflows and pre-integrated register and custody partners delivered as one package rather than sourced part by part, is what most issuers mean when they search for a Tokeny alternative.

Which platform fits family offices better?

Neither ONINO nor Tokeny sells a family-office product as such; the fit follows from the operating model. A single or multi-family office that runs its own deal flow, SPVs and co-investments under its own brand maps to ONINO's operator model. A family office that allocates into institutionally tokenized funds will more likely touch Tokeny-powered products through its fund managers.

Tokeny positions toward institutions and fund managers: its solutions navigation covers real estate, private equity, funds and debt, and its published references are banks, asset managers and hedge funds. There is no dedicated family-office offering on tokeny.com. That is not a weakness, just a statement of who the platform is built for.

ONINO's use cases read like a family-office operations list: SPVs and investor clubs, private credit, cooperatives and reusable investor onboarding under the family's own brand, with an asset tokenization solution for structures such as tokenized co-investments. Regulators have logged the same shift. IOSCO's Tokenization of Financial Assets report (FR/17/25, November 2025) records tokenization of funds and private assets moving into the mainstream. So a family office should be asking who runs the stack, not which features ship. The test below formalises that.

The Issuance Operating Model Test

Four questions settle the ONINO vs Tokeny decision faster than any feature matrix:

1. Jurisdiction, instrument and modality. Where do you issue, and what: eWpG securities, Vermögensanlagen under VermAnlG, ECSPR offers, or multi-jurisdiction funds? And does the instrument need to be a token at all: from day one, later, or never?

2. Stack operator. Who assembles and runs compliance, onboarding and lifecycle: you, with agents you appoint, or the platform?

3. Register and custody seat. Who legally maintains the securities register and holds the assets?

4. Investor relationship. Whose brand fronts the raise, who owns the investor data, and who brings distribution?

Answers that cluster around "we assemble, we appoint, we distribute across many jurisdictions" describe Tokeny's model. If they cluster instead around "we bring the deals and investors, the platform operates the stack under our brand", the shortlist is really about ONINO.

How do ONINO and Tokeny pricing models compare?

As of July 2026, Tokeny publishes no pricing on their website; sales run through enterprise custom quotes. ONINO publishes a three-tier structure, Direct Placement (Eigenemission), White-Label and ONINO Listing, and positions a fixed platform fee, though euro price points are not public for either vendor.

Third-party reviews report that Tokeny's fees combine an upfront implementation fee, a recurring licence and per-investor charges, with positioning toward issuances above €5M; those figures come from tokenizestartup.com and are not verified against Tokeny, so treat them as directional at best. What is verifiable is the absence of a pricing page and the enterprise sales motion.

ONINO's published contrast is "fixed platform fee versus a €500K+ custom build", and a white-label environment live in under 24 hours where a bespoke build runs 6 to 12 months, by ONINO's own count. Enterprise-opaque pricing against a published tier structure with fixed-fee positioning is itself a signal of who each vendor is built to sell to. Custom quotes suit institutions running procurement processes; a published tier structure suits operators and mid-market issuers who need to budget a raise before committing.

Tokeny alternatives: how EU issuers usually shortlist

Issuers searching for a Tokeny alternative are rarely rejecting ERC-3643. They are testing whether a toolkit or an operated platform matches how they actually run a raise. Three profiles recur on EU shortlists.

• Same institutional infrastructure model. Independent roundups such as tokenizestartup.com group Securitize, tZERO and Polymesh (formerly Polymath) in the same institutional-infrastructure category as Tokeny. If that is the model you want, the evaluation question is ecosystem depth and jurisdictional reach, and Tokeny's ERC-3643 authorship is hard to beat.

• The EU regulatory layer pre-integrated for you. This is where ONINO sits: native eWpG, VermAnlG and ECSPR workflows, registrar and custody partners already integrated with the permission sitting on the partner's side, and, on ONINO's own numbers, a branded investor portal live in under 24 hours.

• Distribution rather than infrastructure. Some issuers are better served by placing through an existing regulated platform than by owning an issuance stack at all.

If your shortlist mixes these profiles, you are comparing different products, not different vendors. The Issuance Operating Model Test above separates them.

Who should choose ONINO and who should choose Tokeny?

Choose Tokeny if you are a financial institution or fund manager tokenizing large products across many jurisdictions and you want to own the infrastructure layer. Choose ONINO if you are a platform operator, asset manager or family office issuing EU instruments and you want a branded, operated, end-to-end stack.

The Tokeny case in full: you tokenize funds or large instruments across multiple jurisdictions, you are comfortable assembling your own agents, custodians and distribution, and you value the ERC-3643 ecosystem, including Apex Group's backing, the ERC3643 Association and members such as DTCC. Tokeny wrote the standard the institutional market coalesced around, and that ecosystem is the product.

The ONINO case in full: you issue EU instruments (Nachrangdarlehen, Genussrechte, bonds, funds, equity) under eWpG, VermAnlG or ECSPR, you want the registrar and custody partners already integrated and the compliance workflows native to those regimes, and you want your own brand and investor data on a portal that is live in days, not quarters. The same applies if tokenization should stay optional: a mixed book of classical and tokenized raises runs on one modular platform, a flexibility a token-only toolkit is not built for. Issuers who arrive at ONINO as a Tokeny alternative almost never object to Tokeny's technology. What they object to is the assembly work, since their business is running raises rather than integrating infrastructure.

Neither platform is the wrong answer. The Issuance Operating Model Test above will route most shortlists correctly in under an hour.

ONINO vs Tokeny: frequently asked questions

Is Tokeny a custodian?

No. Tokeny is non-custodial and wallet-agnostic: per Tokeny, the T-REX Platform integrates third-party custodians and self-custody wallets, and only the token holder can sign transactions, so neither the issuer nor Tokeny can move tokens on a holder's behalf. Custody and investor-register responsibility sit with the issuer and the agents it appoints, such as a registrar or transfer agent. Tokeny's ONCHAINID identity layer allows tokens to be recovered to a new wallet after identity confirmation, which addresses the lost-key objection without making Tokeny a custodian.

Does MiCAR apply to tokenized securities?

No. Crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments under MiFID II are excluded from MiCAR by Article 2(4)(a) and remain under securities law: MiFID II, the Prospectus Regulation and national regimes such as Germany's eWpG and VermAnlG. As of July 2026 this remains the position for tokenized bonds, fund units and shares, and both ONINO and Tokeny operate on that basis. MiCAR is therefore not the deciding regime in an ONINO vs Tokeny comparison.

What does Tokeny cost?

Tokeny publishes no pricing. As of July 2026 there is no pricing page on tokeny.com and sales run through enterprise custom quotes. Third-party review site tokenizestartup.com reports a combination of an upfront implementation fee, a recurring licence and per-investor charges, with positioning toward issuances above €5M; those figures are not verified against Tokeny and should be treated as directional. ONINO by contrast publishes a three-tier structure, Direct Placement (Eigenemission), White-Label and ONINO Listing, with fixed platform fee positioning, though euro price points are not public for either vendor.

Can you use ERC-3643 with the German eWpG?

Yes, but the token standard does not satisfy the legal requirement on its own. ERC-3643 restricts token transfers technically, while the eWpG determines how the security legally exists, and a German crypto security still requires a crypto securities register maintained by a BaFin-authorised registrar. Maintaining that register is a financial service under §1(1a) sentence 2 no. 8 KWG, requiring BaFin authorisation and minimum initial capital of €150,000. As of July 2026 the crypto-register provisions sit in §§ 16 to 23 eWpG following the StoFöG renumbering in February 2026, so any source citing the older section numbering is out of date.

What is ONINO?

ONINO is a German white-label tokenization and issuance platform, founded in 2021 and based in Karlsruhe. It supplies the issuance software for regulated offerings, subordinated loans and participation rights as Vermögensanlagen, plus bonds, equity and funds as securities, with native workflows for eWpG, VermAnlG and ECSPR and registrar and custody partners pre-integrated. The platform is modular: instruments can run non-tokenized, as security tokens, or as crypto securities (Kryptowertpapiere) under the eWpG. ONINO holds no BaFin permission of its own; where a crypto securities register is required, a BaFin-authorised registrar maintains it. Per ONINO (July 2026), the platform has tokenized €50M+, and a branded white-label environment is live in under 24 hours across 24+ EU countries and Switzerland.

Is ONINO BaFin-licensed?

No. ONINO is a technology provider and holds no BaFin permission of its own. On Germany's eWpG route the crypto securities register must be maintained by a BaFin-authorised registrar, and maintaining it is a financial service under §1(1a) sentence 2 no. 8 KWG that requires authorisation and minimum initial capital of €150,000. In ONINO's model that function is performed by a pre-integrated registrar partner, which holds the permission. Whether an issuer needs its own permission depends on the instrument and offer size, not on which platform it uses.

Does ONINO only support tokenized instruments?

No. Tokenization on ONINO is an optional layer, not a prerequisite. The same white-label platform runs three issuance modes: non-tokenized classical instruments with a fully digital subscription and lifecycle, tokenized instruments as security tokens, and crypto securities (Kryptowertpapiere) under the eWpG, where a BaFin-authorised registrar partner maintains the register. Asset classes range from participation rights and subordinated loans as Vermögensanlagen to bonds, equity and institutional fund structures. Tokeny takes the opposite approach: every instrument issued through T-REX exists as an ERC-3643 token. On ONINO the choice is made per issuance, not per platform.

What is the best Tokeny alternative in the EU?

It depends on the operating model rather than the feature list. Issuers who want to own and assemble institutional, multi-jurisdiction tokenization infrastructure generally stay with Tokeny or a comparable ERC-3643 toolkit. Issuers who want an operated, branded end-to-end stack for EU instruments under eWpG, VermAnlG or ECSPR usually shortlist ONINO, which per ONINO delivers a white-label environment live in under 24 hours across 24+ EU countries and Switzerland. The practical test is whether you want to integrate infrastructure or run raises.

Comparing providers for a concrete raise? Book a demo and walk through your instrument, jurisdiction and register setup with the ONINO team.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.