When a fork duplicates the token: what to do first
When a fork duplicates a tokenised right, treat both resulting chains as disputed until the issuer's fork policy names one as the continuation. Freeze any transfer on your side and record the block height plus both transaction hashes. Then ask the token's custodian or crypto-asset service provider to confirm in writing which chain it recognises, before you rely on either copy.
This situation sits inside tokenised rights and digital objects, where the token and the underlying record can drift apart. The Coverage map: 40 jurisdictions, 13 register families and who shows where a register exists to check the duplicate against, and where none does. Denmark is one of the jurisdictions covered; the report pages for that country are referenced further down this page.
The legal basis
Two regulations set the frame here. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) classifies the crypto-asset and sets the obligations of the entity that issues or services it, including how that entity must treat events affecting the asset's integrity. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) governs the information that must travel with a transfer of the token, which matters once two chains each carry a version of it.
Neither regulation names a fork as an event with a fixed procedure written into the text. The procedure comes from the issuer's own published policy and from the terms under which the token was issued, read against the obligations both regulations already place on the service provider.
Nothing in either regulation decides which chain is the "real" one. That is a private decision, taken by the entity that holds the custody relationship or runs the service, and it is that decision you need in writing before you act further.
What changes in practice
A duplicated token creates two competing claims to the same right for as long as both chains stay live. Exchanges may list the two versions differently. Wallets may show both balances without flagging the conflict. A counterparty who received a transfer on the chain you consider invalid may treat that transfer as good.
Delay works against you. The longer both versions circulate, the harder it becomes to prove which one the custodian or service provider ultimately recognised, and the more transactions build up on the chain that later turns out not to be the continuation.
| Question | Where the answer sits |
|---|---|
| Which chain is the continuation | the issuer's published fork policy |
| Whether the transfer record is complete | information required under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) |
| Whether the service provider must act | obligations set under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) |
| Whether the underlying right still matches the token | the register behind the asset, checked separately |
What to do first
- Stop any transfer of the token on your side until the fork policy is confirmed in writing.
- Record the block height at the fork and both resulting transaction hashes; keep the raw export, not a screenshot.
- Request the custodian's or crypto-asset service provider's written position on which chain it recognises as the continuation.
- Where the duplicate involves reserve assets held by a third party, follow the parallel procedure: What to do first in this situation in detail.
- Notify any counterparty who received a transfer on the disputed chain, before you settle further with them.
- Keep the register check for the underlying right separate. A fork does not change what the register itself shows.
Who decides, and by when
The custodian or crypto-asset service provider decides first, against its own published fork policy and the obligations Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) places on it. If the token's terms name a forum for disputes, that forum decides next. Where the terms name none, a civil court with jurisdiction over the issuer or the service provider takes the question.
Neither regulation sets a fixed deadline for the fork itself. The clock that is already running is contractual: the notice period your agreement gives for reporting a disputed transfer, counted from the moment you knew about it. Miss that window, and the custodian may treat your claim as late regardless of which chain later proves correct.
If your situation differs
If the issuer has published no fork policy at all, put your request in writing and treat the custodian's silence as a fact to record, not as an answer in itself.
If a counterparty has already spent the duplicate on the chain you consider invalid, notify them in writing before you take any further step. Do not settle on the assumption that your view of the fork will prevail.
If the token is asset-referenced and the reserve sits with a third party, the custody question and the fork question run on separate tracks. Each needs its own evidence file.
What this page does not cover
This page sets out the procedure once a fork has duplicated the token. It does not confirm whether the underlying right was ever registered, or what a register in a given country shows once the dispute is over.
Where the token relates to an asset, that check runs through the asset extract for the relevant jurisdiction, for example the Asset report denmark.
Where it relates instead to a counterparty's own standing, the same check runs through the Debtor report denmark.
A partner reviews the fork evidence and responds within minutes during business hours. The estimate for the wider file — how many chains, how many registers, whether a counterparty already disputes the transfer — follows within one working day.
Verified
Checked against Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), in force from 30 December 2024, and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), in force from the same date. Both are EU-wide regulations rather than national law, so no national implementing act is cited on this page.
Last checked: 4 March 2025.
Related situations
A neighbouring procedure applies when the token points to a right that was never entered in any register: When the token refers to an unregistered right: what.
Frequently asked questions
What is the first step when a fork duplicates the token?
Stop any transfer on your side and request the custodian's or service provider's written position on which chain it recognises, before you rely on either copy.
Which deadline is already running?
No regulation sets a fixed deadline for the fork itself. The deadline that runs is contractual: the notice period your agreement sets for reporting a disputed transfer, counted from when you knew about it.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The custodian or crypto-asset service provider decides first, against the block height, the transaction hashes on each chain, and its own published fork policy. A dispute beyond that goes to the forum the terms name, or otherwise to a court with jurisdiction over the provider.