Purpose: In this article, we examine tokenization as the infrastructural recoding of educational credentials in the tertiary education sector. Central to this discussion is the key question of whether tokenized (blockchain/DLT-based) credential architectures actually contribute to the democratization of recognition, target group-oriented permeability, mobility, and control over educational biographies—or whether they give rise to new forms of re-intermediation in which wallet ecosystems, identity infrastructures, standard-setting, and compliance regimes act as new gatekeepers. Tokenization is understood not as a purely technical invention or normative innovation, but as a governance project that reorganizes the legitimacy, responsibility, and value attribution of competency credentials. Design/methodology/approach: Accordingly, the research contribution is based on a theory-driven, systematic analysis of literature and documents relating to relevant research and policy discourses on (a) micro-credentials and digital credential verification, (b) self-sovereign identity approaches and selective disclosure, and (c) tokenization and governance debates, including decentralization and market structure issues. Analytically, a three-part evaluation grid is used (credential architecture, implementation and adoption logics, and governance/political economy) to reveal mechanisms of power shifts, new dependencies, and (de)legitimization processes. Findings: Firstly, the analysis based on premises makes it clear that tokenization shifts the mode of recognition of educational qualifications from institutionally secured trust orders, thereby reconfiguring trust through new governance arrangements under conditions of information asymmetry, to infrastructure-mediated validity regimes: verifiability does not replace recognition per se but reorganizes its conditions and institutionalized permeability. Secondly, the promise of learner sovereignty proves to be contingent: selective disclosure and portability can strengthen autonomy but at the same time create new vulnerabilities (key/wallet dependency, usability and literacy barriers) and shift responsibilities from the system to individuals. Thirdly, re-intermediation can be observed as a structural effect: decentralization at the protocol level is often accompanied by centralization in ecosystems, standard setting, custody, and compliance infrastructures. Fourth, tokenization is visible as an assetization dynamic that fits educational credentials into market logics of standardization, comparability, and potential exploitation—with consequences for the understanding of education, status order, and participation. Research limitations/implications: However, the results are based on secondary analytical material and primarily reflect discourse logics, architectural decisions, and governance mechanisms; country-specific regulatory dynamics and institutional case studies can only be taken into account indicatively. Further research should systematically examine (1) organizational ethnographic and governance-analytical case studies on wallet and identity ecosystems, (2) impact analyses on exclusion risks (social, digital, legal), and (3) interoperability and standard-setting conflicts in the field of micro-credentials. Practical implications: For universities and education policy, this results in a design requirement that goes beyond technical implementation: tokenized educational credentials require transparent governance (standard setting, auditability, and responsibilities); low-threshold support and compensation structures (to avoid externalization of competence obligations); and redundant verification methods that maintain analog or institutionally secured alternatives as legitimate options. Tokenization can only have a democratizing effect if portability, data protection, and control are not undermined by new gatekeeper arrangements. Originality/value: In this respect, this article shifts the debate from the question of technological efficiency (forgery protection, automation) to an education-based governance analysis of tokenized verification architectures. It provides a conceptual synthesis by bringing together micro-credentialing, SSI/selective disclosure, and tokenization discourses in a common explanatory framework and diagnosing re-intermediation as a central mechanism of the present. This paper reveals tokenization as an ambivalent educational infrastructure: potentially emancipatory, but only under institutionally secured conditions of legitimacy, participation, and responsibility.
Giovanni Vindigni (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: