uzakuguУченые записки Казанского университета. Серия Гуманитарные наукиKazan Journal of Historical, Linguistic, and Legal Research2541-77382500-2171Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет10.26907/2541-7738.2026.3.220-236uzakugu-741Research ArticleЮРИСПРУДЕНЦИЯJURISPRUDENCEТокенизированные акции vs традиционные IPO: сравнительный анализ защиты прав инвесторовTokenized stocks vs. traditional IPOs: A comparative analysis of investor protection strategieshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7418-993XХамидуллинаФ. И.KhamidullinаF. I.

Фарида Ильдаровна Хамидуллина, доктор юридических наук, профессор, профессор кафедры гражданского права

г. Казань

Farida I. Khamidullina, Dr. Sci. (Law), Full Professor, Department of Civil Law

Kazan

inbox7575@inbox.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2464-4241ГазизуллинаЛ. З.GazizullinaL. Z.

Лилия Закиевна Газизуллина, кандидат юридических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры экономической безопасности и налогообложения

г. Казань

Liliya Z. Gazizullina, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Economic Security and Taxation

Kazan

89196873238@mail.ruКазанский (Приволжский) федеральный университетРоссияKazan Federal UniversityRussian Federation2026240720261683220236Copyright © Хамидуллина Ф.И., Газизуллина Л.З., 20262026Хамидуллина Ф.И., Газизуллина Л.З.Khamidullinа F.I., Gazizullina L.Z.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://uzakugu.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/741

В настоящей статье предпринят сравнительно-правовой анализ токенизированных акций и традиционных процедур IPO с точки зрения уровня защиты прав инвесторов, при этом в качестве базовой берется функциональная классификация моделей токенизации (реестровая, кастодиальная, деривативно-синтетическая), позволяющая сопоставить объем корпоративных и обязательственных прав инвестора с применимыми регуляторными режимами. На основе актов BIS, FSB, IOSCO, ESMA, DLT Pilot Regime, MiCA/MiCAR и российского законодательства о ЦФА поэтапно сравниваются механизмы проспектного контроля, листинга, кастодиальной защиты, вторичного обращения и разрешения споров при токенизированных размещениях и классическом IPO. Показано, в каких конфигурациях токенизация воспроизводит или усиливает традиционные гарантии, а где формируются «серые зоны» и регуляторный арбитраж. Сформулированы адресные предложения по донастройке регулирования в ЕС и Российской Федерации на основе принципа регуляторной эквивалентности.

This article presents the findings of a comparative study of tokenized stocks and traditional initial public offerings (IPOs) from the perspective of the legal protection of investor rights. The analysis is based on the functional classification of tokenization models in business (registry-based, custodial, and synthetic), which provides the foundation for comparing the scope of corporate and legally binding investor rights with applicable regulatory regimes. Using the international standards (BIS, FSB, IOSCO), EU regulations (ESMA, DLT Pilot Regime, MiCA/MiCAR), and Russian legislation on digital financial assets (DFA), the mechanisms of prospectus control, listing, custodial protection, secondary trading, and dispute resolution governing both systems were systemically assessed. The results show the configurations in which tokenization reproduces or strengthens traditional guarantees, as well as those that give rise to “regulatory gaps” and opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. Targeted proposals for reforming the current EU and Russian regulatory frameworks based on the principle of regulatory equivalence were outlined.

токенизированные акциицифровые финансовые активы (ЦФА)традиционное IPOзащита прав инвесторовDLT/блокчейнDLT Pilot RegimeMiCA/MiCARкастодиальная инфраструктуракорпоративные праварегуляторный арбитражtokenized stocksdigital financial assets (DFA)traditional IPOsprotection of investor rightsDLT/blockchainDLT Pilot RegimeMiCA/MiCARcustodial infrastructurecorporate rightsregulatory arbitrageReferencesГречка С.С., Кружевникова А.А. Правовой статус криптовалют: проблемы регулирования и защиты прав инвесторов // Гуманит. науки. Высшая школа. 2025. № 3. С. 33–41. https://doi.org/10.24412/cl-37382-2025-3-33-41.Grechka S.S., Kruzhevnikova A.A. The legal status of cryptocurrencies: Problems of regulation and protection of investor rights. Humanities. Higher School, 2025, no. 3. pp. 33–41. https://doi.org/10.24412/cl-37382-2025-3-33-41. (In Russian)Adhami S., Giudici G., Martinazzi S. Why do businesses go crypto? An empirical analysis of Initial Coin Offerings // Journal of Economics and Business. 2018. V. 100, Spec. Issue: FinTech: The impact on consumers and regulatory responses. P. 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.04.001.Adhami S., Giudici G., Martinazzi S. Why do businesses go crypto? An empirical analysis of Initial Coin Offerings. Journal of Economics and Business, 2018, vol. 100, spec. issue: FinTech: The impact on consumers and regulatory responses, pp. 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.04.001.Fisch C. Initial coin offerings (ICOs) to finance new ventures // Journal of Business Venturing. 2019. V. 34, No 1. P. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.007.Fisch C. Initial coin offerings (ICOs) to finance new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 2019, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.007.Fisch C., Momtaz P.P. Institutional investors and post-ICO performance: An empirical analysis of investor returns in initial coin offerings (ICOs) // Journal of Corporate Finance. 2020. V. 64. Art. 101679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101679.Fisch C., Momtaz P.P. Institutional investors and post-ICO performance: An empirical analysis of investor returns in initial coin offerings (ICOs). Journal of Corporate Finance, 2020, vol. 64, art. 101679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101679.Howell S.T., Niessner M., Yermack D. Initial coin offerings: Financing growth with cryptocurrency token sales // Review of Financial Studies. 2020. V. 33, No 9. P. 3925–3974. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz131.Howell S.T., Niessner M., Yermack D. Initial coin offerings: Financing growth with cryptocurrency token sales. Review of Financial Studies, 2020, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 3925–3974. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz131.Kher R., Terjesen S., Liu C. Blockchain, Bitcoin, and ICOs: A review and research agenda // Small Business Economics. 2021. V. 56, No 4. P. 1699–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00286-y.Kher R., Terjesen S., Liu C. Blockchain, Bitcoin, and ICOs: A review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, 2021, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1699–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00286-y.Momtaz P.P. Initial coin offerings // PLoS One. 2020. V. 15, No 5. Art. e0233018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233018.Momtaz P.P. Initial coin offerings. PLoS One, 2020, vol. 15, no. 5, art. e0233018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233018.Benedetti H., Kostovetsky L. Digital Tulips? Returns to investors in initial coin offerings // Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021. V. 66. Art. 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101786.Benedetti H., Kostovetsky L. Digital Tulips? Returns to investors in initial coin offerings. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2021, vol. 66, art. 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101786.Lee T.L., Li J., Shin H.S. The wisdom of crowds in FinTech: Evidence from initial coin offerings // Review of Corporate Finance Studies. 2022. V. 11, No 1. P. 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfab014.Lee J., Li T., Shin D. The wisdom of crowds in FinTech: Evidence from initial coin offerings. Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 2022, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfab014.Lambert T., Liebau D., Roosenboom P. Security token offerings // Small Business Economics. 2022. V. 59, No 1. P. 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00539-9.Lambert T., Liebau D., Roosenboom P. Security token offerings. Small Business Economics, 2022, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00539-9.Ante L., Fiedler I. Cheap signals in security token offerings // Quantitative Finance and Economics. 2020. V. 4, No 4. P. 608–639. https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2020028.Ante L., Fiedler I. Cheap signals in security token offerings. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 608–639. https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2020028.Cappai M. The regulation of crypto-assets between public and private law // Computer Law & Security Review. 2023. V. 49. Art. 105831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105831.Cappai M. The regulation of crypto-assets between public and private law. Computer Law & Security Review, 2023, vol. 49, art. 105831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105831.Cohney S., Hoffman D.A., Sklaroff J., Wishnick D. Coin-operated capitalism // Columbia Law Review. 2019. V. 119, No 3. P. 591–676. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3215345.Cohney S., Hoffman D.A., Sklaroff J., Wishnick D. Coin-operated capitalism. Columbia Law Review, 2019, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 591–676. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3215345.Чувахин П.И. Инвестиционные контракты: баланс между защитой прав инвесторов и суверенитетом государства в эпоху устойчивого развития // Теория и практика общественного развития. 2025. № 8 (208). С. 152–160. https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2025.8.18.Chuvakhin P.I. Investment contracts: balancing investor rights and state sovereignty in the era of sustainable development. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2025, no. 8 (208), pp. 152–160. https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2025.8.18.Zetzsche D.A., Arner D.W., Buckley R.P. Decentralized finance // Journal of Financial Regulation. 2020. V. 6. P. 172–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3539194.Zetzsche D.A., Arner D.W., Buckley R.P. Decentralized finance. Journal of Financial Regulation, 2020, vol. 6, pp. 172–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3539194.Zetzsche D.A., Woxholth J. The DLT sandbox under the Pilot Regulation // Capital Markets Law Journal. 2022. V. 17, No 2. P. 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmac003.Zetzsche D.A., Woxholth J. The DLT sandbox under the Pilot Regulation. Capital Markets Law Journal, 2022, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmac003.Barczentewicz M., de Gândara Gomes A. Crypto-asset market abuse under EU MiCA // European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2024. FirstView Art. P. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.80.Barczentewicz M., de Gândara Gomes A. Crypto-asset market abuse under EU MiCA. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2024, FirstView art., pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.80.Konashevych O. General concept of real estate tokenization on blockchain: The right to choose // European Property Law Journal. 2020. V. 9, No 1. P. 21–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2020-0003.Konashevych O. General concept of real estate tokenization on blockchain: The right to choose. European Property Law Journal, 2020, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 21–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2020-0003.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.