Comment from Tokenization Systems

This is a supplemental comment to the comment Tokenization Systems filed on this docket on April 18, 2026, which is on the public record as comment FINCEN-2026-0034-0008. It adds one focused point and does not restate the seven recommendations already on the record. The point concerns Recommendation 4 of our comment of record, which urged FinCEN to preserve and clarify the requirement that the AML/CFT officer be located in the United States, and argued that the United States based officer should hold effective supervisory control over the United States nexus operations rather than a nominal title. The proposed rule frames the requirement on this same axis: the preamble at Section V.D.3 states that the rule is not primarily concerned with the formal title of the officer, but with the officer's position in the organizational structure that enables the officer to effectively establish and implement the program. Our April comment made that argument as a reasoned position. It did not offer first-party measurement of how far the nominal locus of responsibility can in practice diverge from the effective locus of control. Since the April filing, that measurement has become available to us in a fifty-two protocol empirical study of governance concentration in token-governed systems, accepted for publication at the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Blockchain and available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6599278. Its sample consists of decentralized protocols that are not payment stablecoin issuers, not Bank Secrecy Act institutions, and not subject to this rule, and it is offered as transferable method and cautionary pattern only. In that sample, effective voting control concentrated above the nominal locus of holdings in thirteen of eighteen protocols with sufficient governance data, by a measured factor ranging from 2.5 times to 25.6 times among those thirteen. The pattern indicates that where authority is formally delegated, the effective and nominal loci of control separate by a large and measurable margin in most cases, not only in rare or exceptional ones. This evidence gives empirical weight to Recommendation 4. The United States location requirement for the AML/CFT officer is most likely to achieve its purpose if it is paired with an explicit requirement that the officer hold effective supervisory control, because measurement of delegated systems indicates that nominal designation and effective control diverge by a large factor in most cases. The attached PDF develops this single point in full. Zach Zukowski Tokenization Systems zach@tokenization.systems www.Tokenization.Systems ORCID: 0009-0006-3642-2450 SSRN Author Page: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=10386216