VC vs STO – tokenization the future of fundraising?

Maciej Zieliński

28 Jan 2021
VC vs STO – tokenization the future of fundraising?

Tokenization is becoming a better alternative to solutions that have been present in the financial world for decades. Why might STO be a better choice than the traditional venture capital model? 

Finding a fund is one of the main challenges facing growth-hungry entrepreneurs. Over the years, the financial world has developed solutions that effectively help them do this.

One of them is venture capital (risk capital). VC is financing provided by investors to small companies that they believe have long-term growth potential. It usually comes from wealthy individuals or institutional investors such as banks. VC does not have to take the form of money. It can also take the form of technology or business advice. During the transaction, parts of the ownership of a company are sold to several investors through venture capital funds. 

VC has functioned for several decades as a source of obtaining funding for enterprises. However, it is important to be aware of its limitations. On the Nextrope blog we have taken a closer look at them, while trying to answer the question in what respects STO may be a better choice. 

VC vs STO - key differences

Control

It is common practice for a member of the Venture Capital management team to have a direct influence on the activities in the financed company, e.g. by joining the board. This means that by signing an agreement with the fund, the owners of the company lose full control over the management of their business.  From that moment on, the owners must inform the fund about every key decision, which the fund usually has the right to overrule. 

Of course, an experienced VC fund in this way is able to contribute to improving the management of the company and have a positive impact on its development. However, their possible lack of familiarity with the realities of a particular industry may result in blocking decisions that the owners consider to be the most appropriate.

By opting for an STO, they leave themselves the option to run their company in the way they think is best. It is up to the owners of the company to decide which decisions require a vote of the token holders and which they will make entirely independently. And if a vote is indeed necessary on a particular issue, investors will be able to take part in it through their account from anywhere in the world, which will significantly speed up the whole process.

Cost and time-consuming

The process of organising VS funding is relatively complex and involves many, often costly, intermediaries. In addition, it is extremely time-consuming. The first stages alone usually take between 12 and 18 months. This would not be such a big problem if it were not for the necessity to participate in numerous travelling marketing actions and negotiations with potential investors, which often distract owners from the development of their companies for several months.

In addition, VC always carries the risk of delays in funding. As venture capital involves the exchange of a large amount of funds, the investor may not be willing to submit them all at once. Often, a company will have to meet certain milestones in order to receive the entire amount requested.

On the other hand, a well executed tokenisation in some cases can result in funding being raised in as little as a few weeks. There are also no payment delays involved, as all funds go to the company as soon as tokenisation is completed. The process itself is also much simpler and involves far fewer intermediaries (READ HOW IT WORKS STEP BY STEP HERE).

VC vs STO: liquidity and entry barriers

Venture capital is demanding not only for the companies seeking funding, but also for the investors themselves. Usually, in order to join an investment round, they need to have relatively large capital at their disposal. Therefore, most of them are institutions or wealthy private individuals. It is the high entry barrier that significantly narrows the group of potential investors.

Added to this is the issue of high illiquidity. If someone is considering investing their money in venture capital, they must be prepared to freeze it for a very long time - about 7-12 years. A premature withdrawal of funds is associated with significant losses and cannot be carried out without management approval. Because of this lack of liquidity, investment in venture capital often scares off even those with sufficient capital.

STO, above all, allows the minimum investment amount to be set quite freely. This significantly broadens the group of investors - there can be thousands of them, they just need to be accredited. Moreover, it solves the problem of lack of liquidity. The tokens issued represent traditional ownership and revenue rights, while providing investors with the ability to freely trade them on secondary markets. As a result, they are able to liquidate their investment at essentially any time. 

STOs and Venture Capital - what's next? 

The growing popularity of STOs is just one manifestation of the digitalisation trend that is gaining momentum in financial markets and may soon lead to the emergence of completely new capital management mechanisms. Blockchain-based smart contracts and distributed ledgers will significantly speed up the process of not only raising and circulating capital, but also, for example, preparing an audit.

However, it is worth remembering that there are no universal solutions and STO will not be the most optimal choice in every case.  If you would like to find out how STO would work for your company, our team will be happy to answer all your questions. 

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Blockchain for Creators: Secure and Sustainable Infrastructure

Miłosz Mach

07 Nov 2025
Blockchain for Creators: Secure and Sustainable Infrastructure

In today’s digital creative space, where the lines between art and technology are constantly blurring, projects like MARMALADE mark the beginning of a new era - one where creators can protect their work and maintain ownership through blockchain technology.

For Nextrope, being part of MARMALADE goes far beyond implementing features like screenshot blocking or digital watermarking. It’s about building trust infrastructure - systems that empower creators to thrive in the digital world safely and sustainably.

A new kind of blockchain challenge

Cultural and educational projects come with a completely different set of challenges than typical DeFi systems. Here, the focus isn’t on returns or complex smart contracts - it’s on people: artists, illustrators, educators.

That’s why our biggest task was to design secure yet intuitive infrastructure - lightweight, energy-efficient, and accessible for non-technical users exploring Web3 for the first time.

“Our mission wasn’t to build another financial protocol. It was to create a layer of trust for digital creators.”
— Nextrope Team

Security that stays invisible

The best security is the kind you don’t notice.
Within MARMALADE, we focused on making creators' protection seamless:

  • Screenshot blocking safeguards artworks viewed in browsers.
  • Dynamic watermarking helps identify unauthorized copies.
  • Blockchain registry ensures every proof of ownership remains transparent and immutable

“Creators shouldn’t have to think about encryption or private keys - our job is to make security invisible.”

Sustainability by design

MARMALADE also answers a bigger question - how to innovate responsibly.
Nextrope’s infrastructure relies on low-emission blockchain networks and modular architecture that can easily be adapted for other creative or cultural initiatives.

This means the technology built here can support not only artists but also institutions, universities, and educators seeking to integrate blockchain in meaningful ways.

Beyond technology

For Nextrope, MARMALADE is more than a project — it’s proof that blockchain can empower culture and creators, not just finance. By building tools for digital artists, we’re helping them protect their creativity and discover how technology can amplify human expression.

Plasma blockchain. Architecture, Key Features & Why It Matters

Miłosz Mach

21 Oct 2025
Plasma blockchain. Architecture, Key Features & Why It Matters

What is Plasma?

Plasma is a Layer-1 blockchain built specifically for stablecoin infrastructure combining Bitcoin-level security with EVM compatibility and ultra-low fees for stablecoin transfers.

Why Plasma Blockchain Was Created?

Existing blockchains (Ethereum, L2s, etc.) weren’t originally designed around stablecoin payments at scale. As stablecoins grow, issues like congestion, gas cost, latency, and interoperability become constraints. Plasma addresses these by being purpose-built for stablecoin transfers, offering features not found elsewhere.

  • Zero-fee transfers (especially for USDT)
  • Custom gas tokens (separate from XPL, to reduce friction)
  • Trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge (to allow BTC collateral use)
  • Full EVM compatibility smart contracts can work with minimal modifications

Plasma’s Architecture & Core Mechanisms

EVM Compatibility + Smart Contracts

Developers familiar with Ethereum tooling (Solidity, Hardhat, etc.) can deploy contracts on Plasma with limited changes making it easy to port existing dApps or DeFi, similar to other EVM-compatible infrastructures discussed in the article „The Ultimate Web3 Backend Guide: Supercharge dApps with APIs".

Gas Model & Token Mechanism

Instead of forcing users always to hold XPL for gas, Plasma supports custom gas tokens. For stablecoin-native flows (e.g. USDT transfers), there is often zero fee usage, lowering UX friction.

Bitcoin Bridge & Collateral

Plasma supports a Bitcoin bridge that lets BTC become collateral inside smart contracts (like pBTC). This bridges the security of Bitcoin with DeFi use cases within Plasma.
This makes Plasma a “Bitcoin-secured blockchain for stablecoins".

Security & Finality

Plasma emphasizes finality and security, tuned to payment workloads. Its consensus and architecture aim for strong protection against reorgs and double spends while maintaining high throughput.
The network launched mainnet beta holding over $2B in stablecoin liquidity shortly after opening.

Plasma Blockchain vs Alternatives: What Makes It Stand Out?

FeaturePlasma (XPL)Other L1 / L2
Stablecoin native designusually second-class
Zero fees for stablecoin transfersrare, or subsidized
BTC bridge (collateral)only some chains
EVM compatibilityyes in many, but with trade-offs
High liquidity early✅ (>$2B TVL)many chains struggle to bootstrap

These distinctions make Plasma especially compelling for institutions, stablecoin issuers, and DeFi innovators looking for scalable, low-cost, secure payments infrastructure.

Use Cases: What You Can Build with Plasma Blockchain

  • Stablecoin native vaults / money markets
  • Payment rails & cross-border settlement
  • Treasury and cash management flows
  • Bridged BTC-backed stablecoin services
  • DeFi primitives (DEX, staking, yield aggregation) optimized for stablecoins

If you’re building any product reliant on stablecoin transfers or needing strong collateral backing from BTC, Plasma offers a compelling infrastructure foundation.

Get Started with Plasma Blockchain: Key Steps & Considerations

  1. Smart contract migration: assess if existing contracts can port with minimal changes.
  2. Gas token planning: decide whether to use USDT, separate gas tokens, or hybrid models.
  3. Security & audit: focus on bridge logic, reentrancy, oracle risks.
  4. Liquidity onboarding & market making: bootstrap stablecoin liquidity, incentives.
  5. Regulation & compliance: stablecoin issuance may attract legal scrutiny.
  6. Deploy MVP & scale: iterate fast, measure gas, slippage, UX, security.