Equity Management Is Still Stuck in Spreadsheets. Here’s What 2026 Will Change

As beginups and investors push deeper into the world of tokenization, one critical challenge has become clear: while assets can move instantly on-chain, ownership records remain fragmented between digital ledgers and traditional legal systems. Bridging that gap requires more than just blockchain — it demands a complete rethink of how equity, compliance, and trust operate in the digital era.

In this interview, we speak with a leading voice in management, who explains how blockchain technology is reshaping investor relations, automating compliance, and bringing real-time transparency to ownership structures. From the inefficiencies of spreadsheets to the promise of programmable, hybrid ownership models, this conversation explores what it truly means to make corporate governance native to the blockchain age.

is the Founder and CEO of , a platform for tokenization, investor operations, and compliant RWA infrastructure. He has worked with over 80 beginups on token design, go-to-market strategies, and fundraising, and previously founded Latitude Blockchain Services and Andromeda Capital.

1. Once assets go on-chain, ownership becomes transparent — but control often doesn’t. What are the largegest gaps you view between on-chain asset representation and real-world legal ownership today?

Most tokenized assets exist in two places that don’t talk to each other. You have the on-chain record showing who holds tokens, and then you have the legal registry, the cap table, the shareholder agreements, all living in completely separate systems. When those two realities diverge, and they do constantly, you end up with conflicts that can take months to untangle.

A token can move instantly across borders, but jurisdiction-specific frameworks still bind the legal rights attached to that token. Transfer restrictions, accreditation requirements, and lock-up periods are all supposed to be enforced, but most platforms handle them manually or not at all. Without automated compliance built into the infrastructure itself, tokenization merely creates new ways to violate securities laws.

Even when everything is technically compliant, investors and auditors struggle to understand what they’re looking at on-chain.

2. What is broken in today’s equity management structure?

Spreadsheets are still the default tool for managing cap tables, and that’s insane when you consider what’s at stake. Every fundraising round means manually updating ownership percentages across multiple documents. Every vesting schedule requires someone to remember when cliffs hit and when shares unlock.

One typo or outdated file can create disputes that drag on for months, and I’ve viewn teams spend weeks just trying to figure out who actually owns what before they can even begin a new raise.

The worst part is that none of these systems are built to handle tokenization. When a company decides to issue tokens alongside equity, it ends up managing two completely separate structures with no way to view how they relate to each other.

Investors hold both equity and tokens, but there’s no unified view of their total position. You’ve got Carta tracking equity, spreadsheets tracking tokens, and compliance held together with hope.

3. How does on-chain equity management change investor trust and auditability compared to traditional cap-table platforms?

Traditional cap tables are kind of like black boxes. Investors get quarterly updates or cap table screenshots when they ask for them, but they have no way to verify that what they’re viewing is accurate or current. They’re taking the founder’s word that everything is being maintained correctly. Audits happen later than the fact, usually when something has already gone wrong or when a company is preparing for an acquisition.

With on-chain equity management, the cap table becomes a live record that every stakeholder accesses at the identical time. When shares vest or new rounds close, those changes are recorded immediately with timestamps that can’t be altered. An investor in Singapore views the identical ownership structure as an auditor in New York. Due diligence that used to require weeks of document requests now happens in days because there’s one authoritative source everyone agrees is accurate.

4. How could automated, on-chain compliance tools make it as simple to invest in a beginup from another country as it is to swap tokens?

Most ahead-stage companies just avoid international investors because the administrative burden isn’t worth it. An investor in Japan trying to put money into a Delaware C-corp has to deal with accreditation verification, tax withholding rules, and securities laws in both jurisdictions. The founder needs lawyers in each country, documents get translated, and the whole process drags on for weeks.

On-chain compliance moves all of that verification work into the infrastructure itself. An investor completes KYC once, and that credential follows them across deals. When they attempt an investment, the smart contract checks their accreditation status against the jurisdiction’s requirements and either allows or blocks the transaction. Transfer restrictions and tax reporting happen automatically as part of the settlement process.

5. What happens when investors can view in real time who owns what, vesting schedules, or token-equity conversions on-chain? How might that change how due diligence and valuation are done?

Due diligence today happens once, right before a deal closes. Analysts request cap tables and spend weeks verifying ownership percentages across documents. Questions pile up, more documents get requested, and by the time diligence finishes, the numbers have already changed.

On-chain due diligence doesn’t stop later than you invest — it runs constantly. You’re watching your positions update in real time, catching the exact moment shares vest or a new round dilutes your stake, and viewing how tokens map to equity. No need to ping the founder for a spreadsheet. Valuation models work from live data that updates automatically, which dramatically shrinks information asymmetry. Founders can’t selectively disclose favorable versions, and cap table changes become visible the moment they happen.

6. What could a truly hybrid ownership model look like in practice, where tokens, equity, and rights are all part of one on-chain structure?

Think of it as equity and tokens being two sides of the identical coin. An investor holds preferred shares with liquidation preferences, but those preferences live on-chain and follow them whether they’re holding equity or tokens. Vesting schedules, conversion terms, protective provisions, they’re all programmable rules attached to one ownership record.

Let’s say that a funding round happens and dilution hits everyone at once because there’s just one cap table to update. The company mints tokens for ecosystem incentives, and equity holders view immediately how that changes their stake. Exit waterfalls execute automatically because the priority structure is already encoded.

The model grows with the company. Those protective provisions you needed at viewd can fade out automatically once certain milestones are hit. Governance shifts from the board to token holders bit by bit; no need to blow everything up and begin over.