A claim that tokenized U.S. equities were about 1.5 times as volatile as traditional shares has been attributed to an IMF study. But neither the underlying report nor its data have been verified, so the figure should not be treated as an established IMF finding.
- The alleged IMF study and its 1.5× volatility result remain unconfirmed.
- The measurement window, comparison prices and volatility method are unclear.
- Tokenized products may offer different rights from directly registered shares.
- Trading outside stock-market hours does not guarantee deep liquidity.
The claim cites a study titled “Scaling Tokenization: New Efficiencies, New Vulnerabilities, ” reportedly included in the IMF’s October 2026 Global Financial Stability Report. The IMF document available for review is a September 2025 Finance & Development PDF, not that report. No copy of the alleged chapter or usable data appendix is available to confirm the attribution or findings.
There is a big difference between an IMF conclusion and a figure circulating under the Fund’s name. Until the report, methodology and data can be checked, the 1.5× figure and the other specific findings attributed to the study should be considered unverified.
What would the 1.5× figure need to show?
“Realized volatility” measures how much an asset’s price moved over a set period. A claim that one market was 1.5 times as volatile as another is useful only if the calculation behind it is clear.
That means knowing the measurement window, sampling frequency, price feeds and comparison assets. It also matters whether the calculation includes hours when conventional U.S. exchanges are closed and whether the figures were annualized. Without those details, the headline ratio tells us neither how the comparison was made nor why prices differed.
The claim is also linked to a sample of five tokenized products tied to Tesla, Nvidia, Alphabet, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, traded across 11 venues. It reportedly covered products from Ondo Finance and xStocks and about $345 million in tokenized equity value. That figure refers to value, not trading volume. The distinction matters: outstanding value and the amount changing hands measure different things. Without the study, these sample details remain unconfirmed, too.
Extended hours are not the same as deep markets
Tokenized products may trade while U.S. stock exchanges are closed. That gives investors more chances to trade, including in response to overnight news. But an open trading venue does not mean the underlying stock market is open, or that enough buyers and sellers are around to absorb orders smoothly.
In a thin market, even a relatively small order can move the price sharply. Token prices may also drift from the referenced stock while conventional markets are closed and there is no live exchange price to compare against. These are reasons to examine liquidity and price tracking. They do not prove that extended-hours trading caused a specific volatility result.
The same caution applies to another figure attributed to the alleged study: roughly 80% of the examined trades reportedly involved less than one conventional share. If accurate, that describes trade size. It does not necessarily show the share of total trading value, the number of investors or retail participation across the market. A percentage of transactions cannot answer all those questions.
A token linked to a stock is not always the stock
“Tokenized stock” can refer to several different legal structures. Depending on the product, a token may represent direct share ownership, a right connected to shares held through an intermediary, or an arrangement designed to track a stock’s price. The token’s name alone does not tell you what rights its holder has.
That distinction can affect voting rights, dividends, custody, transfer restrictions and what happens if an issuer or intermediary fails. Buyers should read the product’s legal terms rather than assume a token linked to a company is equivalent to a share registered in their own name.
Putting an asset on a blockchain may make some transfers or administrative processes easier to automate. It does not guarantee faster or safer settlement. Those benefits depend on clear legal rights, reliable custody, compatible systems and suitable settlement assets. If networks and venues cannot communicate effectively, tokenization may add fragmentation rather than reduce it.
Market-size and regulatory claims also need primary sources
Other figures attributed to the alleged IMF report include a $65 billion public tokenized real-world-asset market as of July 2026, with $2.3 billion in tokenized equities. The claim says the estimate excludes stablecoins and repurchase agreements. Without the report, its definitions and tables, those figures cannot be confirmed or safely compared with other market estimates.
The same goes for the claimed comparison with nearly $160 trillion in conventional global equities in 2025, attributed to SIFMA figures. A meaningful comparison needs matching dates and definitions. An estimate of outstanding tokenized assets should not be casually compared with a differently defined measure of conventional market value.
The purported study is also said to recommend clearer legal rules, regulatory clarity, interoperability, appropriate settlement assets and safeguards for liquidity and disorderly trading. These are relevant issues for tokenized markets, but the recommendations should not be presented as confirmed IMF findings without the chapter itself.
A supplied SEC filing text about mental health does not substantiate claims about a Nasdaq tokenized-securities pilot. Any account of that pilot needs the actual SEC filing or order, including its scope, status, effective date and conditions. Company announcements should also be checked directly, with proposed plans distinguished from completed launches or investments.
A market can be small and still carry risks worth watching. It may pose limited systemic risk now, but it is still worth examining how interconnected platforms, automated margin calls and forced liquidations could behave during a shock. That is a risk to assess, not evidence that a crisis is already unfolding.
Questions readers should ask
-
Did the IMF confirm that tokenized equities were 1.5 times more volatile?
The figure has been attributed to an IMF study, but the alleged report and its methodology have not been verified. It should not be presented as a confirmed IMF finding.
-
Would higher volatility prove tokenized stocks are inherently riskier?
No. Volatility measures price movement, not what caused it. A sound comparison would need to account for trading hours, liquidity, product structure and the measurement period.
-
What should buyers check before purchasing a tokenized stock?
Read the legal terms and confirm what rights the token conveys, who holds any underlying shares, how custody and redemption work, where the token trades and what risks apply when conventional markets are closed.
-
Is around-the-clock trading the same as around-the-clock liquidity?
No. A platform can accept trades outside exchange hours without having enough buyers and sellers to prevent sharp price moves or price gaps.
The 1.5× claim should remain on hold until the IMF report, its methodology and the underlying comparisons are available for review. For investors, the practical questions are clear: What does the token legally represent? How liquid is its market? And how closely can its price track the referenced asset while conventional exchanges are shut?
