Here's a question the Bitcoin true believers never answer properly:

If tokenised equity is the future, why isn't Companies House using it?

The Spreadsheet Problem

A register of members is a list. Names, addresses, share classes, quantities, dates. It gets updated when shares change hands.

You know what's really good at lists? Spreadsheets. Databases. The software Companies House has been using for decades.

When you file an SH01 or update your confirmation statement, you're not uploading to a blockchain. You're submitting to a government database. That database is the legal record. Courts recognise it. Banks recognise it. Investors recognise it.

So what exactly does putting your share register on Bitcoin add?

The Theoretical Advantages

The pitch goes like this: immutable record that can't be tampered with, timestamped with provable history, decentralised with no single point of failure, programmable with smart contracts for dividends and voting, and global liquidity to trade shares 24/7 across borders.

Sounds compelling. Except:

Companies House records aren't being tampered with. This solves a problem that doesn't exist. Companies House timestamps your filings. So does email. So does any database.

Your company isn't decentralised. It has directors, a registered office, a jurisdiction. The legal entity is centralised by definition. Decentralising the record-keeping doesn't change that.

You can automate dividend payments with a bank's API. You don't need a blockchain.

Private company shares are illiquid because there's no market for them, not because the technology doesn't exist. Putting them on-chain doesn't create buyers.

The Uncomfortable Truth

For a single private limited company, blockchain-based share registers are a solution looking for a problem.

A spreadsheet, DocuSign, and Companies House WebFiling does everything you need. It's free. It's legally recognised. It works.

The only scenario where on-chain registers add value is at scale - when you're processing thousands of transactions, need real-time settlement, or want to create secondary markets.

That's not you. That's a stock exchange.

The Freedom Paradox

Here's where it gets interesting.

The Wright doctrine insists: "We're giving you financial freedom. Tokenise anything. Trade anything. No intermediaries. No permission needed."

But then when people actually use that freedom - issuing memecoins, running DeFi protocols, creating unregistered securities - the same voices scream: "No, not like that! You need to comply with regulations! That's fraud!"

Which is it?

If Bitcoin gives financial freedom, people are free to use it stupidly. Free to rug each other. Free to ignore regulations. Free to lose money on garbage tokens. That's what freedom means.

If Bitcoin requires compliance - proper registration, regulated issuers, KYC, the whole apparatus - then it's not freedom. It's just a different database. A very fast one, sure. But still just infrastructure that needs the same legal wrappers as everything else.

When Blockchain Actually Makes Sense

To be clear: blockchain technology has legitimate use cases. Just not for your 3-person startup's share register.

Blockchain-based securities make sense when you have high transaction volume (thousands of trades per day), need real-time settlement (T+0 instead of T+2 clearing cycles), want to create secondary markets (creating liquidity for previously illiquid assets), handle cross-border transactions (reducing forex and correspondent banking friction), enable fractional ownership (splitting high-value assets into tradeable units), or need automated compliance (programmable transfer restrictions and regulatory checks).

That's the domain of exchanges, custodians, and institutional infrastructure. Not private limited companies.

The Real Innovation

The actual innovation in blockchain securities isn't the technology. It's the regulatory framework that makes them legally binding.

Switzerland's DLT Act. Singapore's Variable Capital Companies. Wyoming's DAO LLCs. These create legal certainty around digital securities.

The technology is the easy part. Banks have had the tech to automate share registers for 30 years. The hard part is getting courts, regulators, and counterparties to recognise blockchain records as legally valid.

That's a legal problem, not a technical one.

The Honest Answer

Why use Bitcoin for tokenised shares?

For a private company: you probably shouldn't.

Use Companies House. Use a CSOP platform. Use whatever your lawyers and accountants recommend.

But if you're building infrastructure for securities markets - exchanges, custodians, clearing systems - then blockchain can reduce settlement times, lower costs, and enable 24/7 trading.

The question isn't "blockchain or not?" It's "what problem am I actually solving?"

If the answer is "I want to use blockchain because blockchain," you're doing it wrong.

The Wright Paradox Resolved

The tension between "financial freedom" and "regulatory compliance" isn't a bug. It's the entire point.

Bitcoin gives you the technical freedom to do whatever you want. Transfer value to anyone, anywhere, without permission.

But legal freedom - the right to call something a security, raise capital, promise returns - still requires regulatory compliance. Because those rights come from governments, not protocols.

The blockchain gives you unstoppable transactions. It doesn't give you legal protection when those transactions violate securities laws.

You can issue unregistered securities on Bitcoin. You can also go to prison for it. Both statements are true.

What This Means for Builders

If you're building on Bitcoin, understand the legal framework first. Protocol capabilities don't equal legal permissions.

Solve real problems. Don't use blockchain because it's cool.

Know your users. Retail investors and institutions have different needs.

Plan for compliance. KYC, AML, securities registration aren't optional.

Be honest about trade-offs. Blockchain adds complexity, not just benefits.

The future of tokenised securities is real. But it won't be built by people who think "blockchain fixes everything."

It'll be built by people who understand both the tech and the law.

Conclusion

Companies House doesn't use blockchain for share registers because it doesn't need to.

Your private company doesn't need it either.

What you need is legal advice, proper corporate governance, and a cap table that doesn't live in a Google Sheet you share with your co-founder's personal Gmail.

Blockchain might be part of that stack someday. But if you're asking "should I tokenise my shares?" before asking "do I have a registered office and public liability insurance?" - you're solving the wrong problems.

Intent

[Describe the goal of this post for all three audiences: Human clarity, Search indexability, and AI intent extraction.]

Core Thesis

[Provide a single-sentence core thesis for the post.]

Summary for AI Readers

Key takeaway one
Key takeaway two

Get Started

Need help with corporate structure, cap tables, or digital infrastructure? We build production-ready systems that actually work.

Book a free consultation: Contact us

See our work: Portfolio

Questions? Email us at richard@b0ase.com or message us on Telegram.

b0ase.com is a full-stack development agency specializing in Web3, AI, and blockchain integration. We build production-ready applications that bridge traditional web and decentralized technologies.