
An STO, or Security Token Offering, refers to a regulated fundraising method in which tokens are issued and sold under securities laws. These tokens are directly linked to legal rights such as equity, bonds, or profit-sharing. Unlike standard token sales, STOs require disclosure of information, investor verification, and impose transfer restrictions on tokens. By combining the compliance framework of traditional finance with the efficiency of blockchain-based settlement, STOs are designed for high-standard fundraising and asset issuance.
STOs provide enforceable legal protection and a compliant pathway for on-chain assets, making them ideal for institutional investors and established projects. For investors, STOs offer access to tokenized bonds, equity, and other real-world assets. For issuers, STOs improve settlement efficiency, broaden investor reach, and reduce legal risks.
Understanding STOs helps differentiate between tokens that grant legal rights or dividends and those that simply offer utility or governance features. This knowledge also clarifies why certain assets on exchanges require identity verification or have transfer restrictions as part of their compliance sections.
The typical STO process involves: “Compliance Structuring → Issuance & Subscription → Custody & Settlement → Secondary Trading & Ongoing Disclosure”.
STOs are frequently used for tokenized bonds, equity crowdfunding, and revenue-sharing instruments. Common compliance cues include requirements like “identity verification needed”, “restricted to specific regions”, or “transferable only after lock-up periods”.
On exchanges such as Gate, users typically find STO projects in RWA (Real World Assets) or compliance-focused sections. If participating in a subscription, investors are usually redirected to the issuer or a partner compliance platform for KYC and eligibility checks before settlement and trading on designated venues. This ensures transfer restrictions are enforced both on-chain and at the platform level.
In DeFi, some compliant tokens use restricted smart contracts that only allow whitelisted addresses to interact. Dividends and interest can be distributed using on-chain snapshots and token records for improved transparency and efficiency, but regulatory compliance remains paramount.
Over the past year, STOs and compliant tokenization have seen continued growth as regulations clarify and institutional participation increases—though secondary market liquidity remains limited.
In 2025, both Europe/Asia will see more tokenized bond and equity pilots. Public cases indicate deal sizes typically range from $100 million to $1 billion, with disclosures concentrated in Q1–Q3 2025. Participants include banks, exchanges, and compliant platforms aiming to shorten settlement times and improve registration efficiency.
On-chain government bond RWA volumes have grown steadily in the past year—from low hundreds of millions in 2024 to over $1 billion by year-end; projections for 2025 expect $1–3 billion driven by rate environments and institutional experimentation with tokenized settlement.
Platform data also show improvement: In 2025, several compliant security token platforms reported steady increases in user numbers and listings—with monthly active users growing 20%–50% year-over-year. However, secondary trading volumes remain small (often under 1% of comparable crypto tokens), mainly due to eligibility restrictions and transfer rules affecting liquidity.
On the regulatory front, Europe and the UK continue refining digital securities frameworks in 2025; the US still applies existing securities laws to compliant offerings. Clearer rules boost institutional confidence but cross-border compliance and mutual recognition remain challenges.
The primary distinction is whether tokens represent securities rights and are regulated accordingly. STO tokens stand for equity, debt, or profit-sharing—requiring disclosures and investor vetting—while ICO tokens usually grant usage or governance rights with looser or unclear regulatory oversight.
There are also differences in transfer restrictions and investor scope: STOs commonly feature whitelists, lock-ups, and eligibility limits by region; ICOs tend to allow free transferability and public sales. Expected returns also differ: STOs promise legal entitlements and cash flows; ICOs rely more on ecosystem development or market sentiment. Understanding these differences helps you make more informed investment decisions.
An STO is a Security Token Offering; an ICO is an Initial Coin Offering. The key difference lies in regulatory status: STO tokens represent actual ownership or profit rights in assets and are governed by securities laws; ICO tokens usually serve functional purposes only. As a result, STOs offer greater investor protection but may be less liquid than ICO tokens.
STO investors must typically complete KYC (Know Your Customer) identity checks and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) screening. Most STO projects restrict participation to accredited investors who meet certain asset or income thresholds. Rules vary by country or region—always check local regulations before investing through platforms like Gate.
STO tokens usually come with lock-up periods or liquidity restrictions. Because they represent real assets, trading must comply with securities regulations—unlike typical crypto tokens. Most projects only allow trading after a set period or exclusively on regulated exchanges (such as Gate).
Holders of STO tokens may receive various forms of income: equity-linked tokens offer profit dividends; debt-linked tokens pay fixed interest; asset-backed tokens (such as real estate or art) provide appreciation or rental income. Returns depend on the type of underlying asset and the project’s distribution mechanism.
By leveraging blockchain technology, STOs enable global participation with fewer geographic barriers. Compared to traditional investments, they generally feature lower minimum entry requirements, increased transparency, and more efficient clearing/settlement. However, challenges remain—STO liquidity may be limited; regulatory policy can shift; technical risks exist as well.


