What should a tokenisation pilot cost and save?

Tokenizace.cz Editorial Team · Planned publication: 2026-11-08 · Sources checked as of: 2026-11-01

Basis of the article: This article draws on the primary material below, checked as of 1 November 2026. Sources 1–3 provide the initial subject basis; further references add professional and comparative context. The practical approach and illustrative situations are editorial analysis, not test results reported by the named institutions.

Reader summary

• Separate initial expenditure from recurring operations.
• Compare the same service scope over the same period.
• Define pilot success as a measurable outcome in advance.

From general benefits to your process

Australia’s Project Acacia examined potential tokenisation benefits while identifying obstacles to scaling. Institutional research of this kind helps frame questions. It is neither a quotation for a Czech company nor proof of its investment return. [1, 2]

For a company decision, select one process: handing over records and reconciling transactions. Measure the work required over a full year, including corrections. Record transaction numbers, output quality and responsibilities. Compare the new route against that same requirement. Comparing one automated step with an entire existing process would distort the result.

A model that challenges the first impression

All the following amounts are fictional assumptions, not market prices. Assume EUR 12,000 for implementation and EUR 8,000 for legal preparation, both paid once. The annual service costs EUR 6,000. Internal operations require 100 hours at EUR 40, or EUR 4,000. The first year therefore costs EUR 30,000: EUR 20,000 initially and EUR 10,000 for recurring operations.

In the same deliberately limited model, the existing route takes 200 hours at EUR 40, totalling EUR 8,000 a year. The new process saves 100 hours worth EUR 4,000. However, the EUR 6,000 service fee exceeds that saving. The new option costs EUR 22,000 more in year one and EUR 2,000 more in the following year under unchanged assumptions. Faster work has not yet produced a positive economic outcome.

What could change the decision?

The project may offer other benefits: fewer errors, earlier access to funds or better records. Each needs its own measurement. Do not count the same saved hour once as speed and again as a separate cost reduction. A larger business volume belongs in a separate scenario rather than a concealed assumption in the base case.

Ask the supplier to specify incident handling, integration changes, support availability and exit costs. Infrastructure principles highlight operational reliability. For an SME, they can inspire questions without automatically imposing the same regulatory duties. [3]

When to close the pilot

Before starting, define the test period, capped budget, responsible person and continuation criteria. For example, measure actual time per reconciled case and errors requiring intervention. Running software provides only one piece of evidence. Management also needs complete costs and a usable output.

The result may be to continue, revise the requirement or stop. If the proposal fails to make economic sense even at a realistic higher volume, stopping is a useful pilot outcome. The company has bought an answer more cheaply than through an unrestricted rollout without measurement.

Implications for Czech and Slovak companies

A Czech or Slovak SME should use its own labour costs, contracts and actual workload. The illustrative euro amounts are not a quotation. Data migration, professional review and the cost of safely leaving the service also belong in the comparison.

Sources

1. RBA — Project Acacia — subject basis
2. RBA — Panel Participation at Intersekt 2026 — subject basis
3. CPMI–IOSCO — Operational risk and financial market infrastructures — subject basis
4. RBA–DFCRC — Project Acacia: Final Report — further context
5. RBA — Project Acacia: Workstream Updates — further context
6. BIS–CPMI — Tokenisation in the context of money and other assets (2024) — further context
7. FSB — The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation (2024) — further context
8. ESMA — Report on the functioning and review of the DLT Pilot Regime (2025) — further context
9. CPMI — The roles of central banks and central bank money in the evolving payment system (29 October 2026) — further context
10. EU — Regulation (EU) 2022/858: DLT Pilot Regime — further context

Methodological note: The article distinguishes documented institutional information from editorial analysis. Numbered references identify direct evidence and professional or legal context. A contextual source does not document this particular transaction. Hypothetical examples are editorial illustrations, not findings about an actual client. A later planned publication date does not advance the verification cutoff.

Notice: For information and education. This is not investment, legal, tax or accounting advice, or an offer of a financial service. Any application requires individual assessment. The institutions mentioned are not partners or guarantors of Tokenizace.cz.