Committee Summary for Commission to Study Stable Tokens (02/10/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
Unclear 00:00:00.000 -	General Working Session	Unclear

Unclear: Commission Members (Introductions) Information Only00:00:00.000 -; Various commission members and public attendees introduced themselves, including Brian Hill (public), Brandon Garrod (Attorney General designee), Jimmy Harris (state treasury), Amelia Galderia (bank commissioner), Mark Gordon (state rep and public), Matt Whitlock (public and presenter), Seth Armberg (academic appointee), Mike Branty (banking commissioner designee), Jim Kish (commission member), Katie Taylor (commission secretary's designee), and Dan Nunez Cohen (commission member).
Unclear: Chair (Minutes Approval) Information Only00:05:00.000 -; The chair facilitated approval of the February 14th meeting minutes, which were available online as an AI summary. A motion was made and seconded, and approved unanimously by all present.
Unclear: Chair (Meeting Overview) Information Only00:10:00.000 -; The chair outlined the agenda: presentations on the Canton Network for tokenization and on tokenized real world assets, specifically Matt Whitlock's real estate project. Invited public comments, including from the new treasury representative.
Unclear: Julie (Digital Asset, Director of Policy and Government Affairs) Information Only00:15:00.000 -; Julie introduced Digital Asset Holdings, creators of the Canton Network, a layer one blockchain designed for tokenizing real world assets like money, equities, bonds, and real estate. She explained tokenization as using blockchain for books and records to shorten settlement times, addressing barriers like privacy, scalability, and control for traditional financial institutions. Described Canton's architecture with private app segments, validators, and a global synchronizer with supervalidators. Emphasized privacy on a need-to-know basis, compliance with regulations, and examples like Broadridge's repo transactions and Circle's stablecoin liquidity. Highlighted partnerships like DTCC tokenizing US Treasuries with SEC coordination, and the Canton coin for utility and fair launch. Discussed policy needs for definitional precision between digital assets and tokenized real world assets to protect investors.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Clarity Act and Rewards) Information Only00:20:00.000 -; Asked about the distinction between digital assets and tokenized real world assets in relation to the stalled Clarity Act and rewards, questioning if the business model depends on permitting rewards.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Clarity Act) Information Only00:20:00.000 -; Clarified that rewards are not central to their model focused on real world assets, but emphasized the importance of the Clarity Act for regulatory clarity to encourage traditional institutions.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on DTCC Implementation) Information Only00:25:00.000 -; Inquired about DTCC's tokenization of US Treasuries versus omnibus accounts and benefits to financial institutions.
Unclear: Julie (Response on DTCC) Information Only00:25:00.000 -; Offered to provide more details on DTCC's phased approach starting with US Treasuries, noting Canton's selection for privacy and control.
Unclear: Jim Kish (Bank CEO, Commission Member) Information Only00:30:00.000 -; Praised the presentation and asked about tokenized deposits and their role in the ecosystem.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Tokenized Deposits) Information Only00:30:00.000 -; Noted expanding interest, like JPMC's JPM Coin on Canton, and agnosticism on cash legs (stablecoins or tokenized deposits), with work on moving assets on-chain.
Unclear: Jim Kish (Follow-up on Privacy and Interoperability) Information Only00:32:00.000 -; Commented on the fascinating private/public ledger approach and confirmed understanding of enabling private tokenized deposits and public stablecoin movements on one network.
Unclear: Julie (Confirmation on Interoperability) Information Only00:32:00.000 -; Affirmed the design reduces settlement and FX risks, enabling interactions between institutions.
Unclear: Katie Taylor (Commission Member) Information Only00:35:00.000 -; Agreed on interesting presentation, raised regulator concerns on fast settlement times, and asked for examples of safeguards or disclosures.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Safeguards) Information Only00:35:00.000 -; Highlighted institution-specific permissions for reversals/pauses and SEC stipulations for clear investor disclosures on tokenization and settlement changes.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Municipal Use) Information Only00:38:00.000 -; Asked about suitability for municipal governments, e.g., property records, or if it's mainly banking infrastructure.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Municipal Use) Information Only00:38:00.000 -; Stated any tokenizable asset can use Canton, including records with customizable privacy; offered to research real estate/property intersections.
Unclear: Commission Member (Follow-up on Property Deeds/Titles) Information Only00:40:00.000 -; Suggested applications like NFT for car titles or property deeds.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Interoperability with Other Blockchains) Information Only00:42:00.000 -; Asked about interoperability, e.g., swapping Ether for Canton coin, and mentioned competitors like Midnight and Aztec Networks for privacy.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Interoperability and Competitors) Information Only00:42:00.000 -; Explained bridges like for USDC, challenges with wrappers; contrasted with layer twos' privacy issues and bridge vulnerabilities; critiqued zero-knowledge proofs for cybersecurity risks and regulatory inadequacies.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Scale and Costs) Information Only00:45:00.000 -; Inquired about scale/costs for running the network, e.g., $100k or $1M.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Scale) Information Only00:45:000.000 -; Offered to provide details on costs.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Community Banks) Information Only00:47:00.000 -; Asked if NH community banks could have own segments, stable token pools, or tokenized deposits for liquidity trading.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Community Banks) Information Only00:47:00.000 -; Confirmed feasibility; institutions can join, govern, launch tokens like JPMC, and create shared tokenized deposits.
Unclear: Jim Kish (Question on Validators) Information Only00:48:00.000 -; Asked if banks choose validators to avoid sanctioned parties, and how governance works.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Validators) Information Only00:48:00.000 -; Institutions customize governance, selecting specific validators or opening to any, tailored to needs like banks vs. DeFi.
Unclear: Jim Kish (Question on Regulator Sharing) Information Only00:50:00.000 -; Asked how financial institutions share with regulators/auditors.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Regulator Access) Information Only00:50:00.000 -; Permissioning allows regulator access; works directly with institutions, e.g., DTCC/SEC; enhances transparency for regulators while maintaining public privacy equivalent to traditional systems.
Unclear: Commission Member (Question on Quarterly Reports) Information Only00:52:00.000 -; Asked when tokenized assets appear in quarterly reports.
Unclear: Julie (Response on Reports) Information Only00:52:00.000 -; Declined to predict timeline.
Unclear: Chair (Closing Julie's Presentation) Information Only00:53:00.000 -; Thanked Julie, noted unique project, slides available, and interest in follow-up.
Unclear: Julie (Closing) Information Only00:53:00.000 -; Offered resources, tech deep dives, and contact for questions.
Unclear: Commission Members (Post-Presentation Discussion) Information Only00:55:00.000 -; Discussed Canton's balance of privacy/transparency, compliance rails, potential for state projects like stable tokens or driver's licenses, and one-system efficiency. Raised technical questions on zero-knowledge proofs vs. Canton's tech, referenced glossary.
Unclear: Matt Whitlock (Presenter, Porcupine Properties) Information Only01:00:00.000 -; Introduced himself as NH resident, software engineer specializing in distributed systems, cybersecurity, cryptography; early Bitcoin developer (Llamasu machine, Coinfloor). Described 2022-2024 Manchester real estate partnership using crude tokenization to pool community funds. Presented Porcupine Properties LLC: NH-based holding company tokenizing equity to democratize real estate investing, retain local rental income. Tokens as digital stock certificates on Liquid Network (Bitcoin sidechain with confidential transactions via zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic cryptography). Explained pegging, federation, native assets; tokens represent ownership claims, trigger legal transfers, fit existing frameworks.
Unclear: Matt Whitlock, Presenter, Porcupine Properties Information Only01:15:00.000 -; Matt Whitlock continues his presentation on tokenization using the Asset Management Platform (AMP) on the Liquid Network. He explains issuer-tracked tokens that tie ownership to known individuals for AML, KYC, and sanctions compliance, preventing anonymous or pseudonymous holdings. Transfer-restricted tokens allow issuers to enforce complex rules preemptively, such as blocking transactions to unauthorized parties before they occur, using multi-signature addresses where the platform co-signs transfers. Examples include requiring KYC for dividend distribution, restricting sales to New Hampshire residents under SEC rules or RSA 421B limits on unregistered securities (max five purchasers per year). He discusses preventing policy violations technologically rather than post-facto punishment. On community benefits, tokenization enables fractional ownership of indivisible assets like real estate, allowing small investors to participate gradually. In a rent-to-own case study for a $300,000 home with 10% annual rent ($2,500/month), 30% expenses, 4% appreciation, and rent increases, he compares a 30-year mortgage (10.81% interest) to token purchases via rent allocation: tenants build equity through PINE tokens representing the property, receiving 70% rents as dividends reinvested until full ownership after 30 years, with negative additional purchases later indicating cash-outs. Beyond real estate, the technology applies to company equity, corporate/municipal bonds (e.g., tokenizing $20 chunks for accessibility), and fungible tokens (vs. NFTs for deeds). He highlights legislative friction: current real estate transfer tax statutes tax every token transfer as a direct property transfer, causing administrative burdens and inability to extract tax mid-transaction; proposes a fix to maintain anti-avoidance protections without swamping DRA with forms.
Unclear: Karen Parkerfeld, Kensington, New Hampshire Information Only01:20:00.000 -; Karen Parkerfeld comments that the described tokens are not bearer instruments, as they do not allow anonymous use like cash for all debts. She emphasizes that none of the system allows anonymity, which she views as important in New Hampshire. She distinguishes privacy from anonymity, notes current laws require known owners for real estate, and inquires about anonymous gifting of tokens, learning that issuers always know owners but recipients might not know senders.
Unclear: Jim Kischer Information Only01:25:00.000 -; Jim Kischer asks for technical context on whether smart contracts and oracles are used for administration and validation. Matt explains the callback acts like an oracle but Liquid Network lacks Ethereum-style smart contracts, resembling Bitcoin with confidentiality. Kischer notes administration needs for growing networks, like documenting votes; Matt mentions APIs for verifiable vote proofs and zero-knowledge proofs for inclusion without revealing votes.
Unclear: Brandon, Attorney General's Office, Consumer Protection Bureau Information Only01:45:00.000 -; Brandon seeks clarification on the rent-to-own model: whether pure renting is an option (yes, without token purchases), if monthly token buys are mandatory (no, contractual), and how consumers decide purchase amounts/frequency to reach ownership (suggests financial advisor consultation). He expresses consumer protection concerns: statements like 'rent-to-own' imply a clear path to ownership, not indefinite timelines; historical issues with rent-to-own models require upfront assessability of feasibility. He notes in multi-unit complexes, tokens represent fractional ownership of the whole, not specific units (unless condos, complicating law), potentially blending condominium and rent-to-own rules.
Unclear: Unnamed Financial Regulator Information Only01:50:00.000 -; The financial regulator confirms the presentation is theoretical/case study, not implemented. Asks what happens if the rental goes bad (e.g., tenant stops paying): tokens retain dividend value if property is re-tenanted, but equity cash-out requires handling in holding company with multiple properties; not a de facto mortgage for specific units. Raises concerns on controlling token value tied to property, cash-out mechanics at end/foreclosure, and defaults not reaching full 30 years. Notes variations seen in banking over 14 years.
Unclear: Unnamed Participant Information Only01:55:00.000 -; The participant discusses Polymarket's tradable contracts on city real estate values, suggesting tokenization of individual houses could enable betting/derivatives on specific properties within 5 years, increasing fungibility and divisibility. Warns of speculative bubbles from liquidity, where residents may not afford inflated values. Clarifies it's derivatives, not just betting, but easier with tokens; chair notes tokenization aids index computation but risks bubbles.
Unclear: Unnamed Public Member Information Only02:00:00.000 -; The public member asks about report preparation timeline (due November, writing last three months based on testimony), public participation (comments on drafts, voted by commission majority, some abstentions possible), meeting formats (public discussions, no quorum emails to avoid RSA 91-A issues; one-on-one ok). Expresses interest in topic's advantages but seeks alternative opinions on worst-case scenarios, opt-outs for tokenization, balanced approaches like cash acceptance laws in other states. Urges mapping risks/protections before finalizing, noting past financial crises from derivatives/re-hypothecation resembling Ponzi schemes; plans to submit question list.