Ferrari is making a pit stop in crypto, but only for its VIP clientele. The Italian automaker plans to issue a “Token Ferrari 499P” that its 100 most exclusive customers can use to bid on a Le Mans-winning race car. It’s a glossy crossover of luxury and blockchain: own a slice of Ferrari history via […] The post Will tokenized Ferraris pull real BTC and ETH flows? appeared first on CryptoSlate.Ferrari is making a pit stop in crypto, but only for its VIP clientele. The Italian automaker plans to issue a “Token Ferrari 499P” that its 100 most exclusive customers can use to bid on a Le Mans-winning race car. It’s a glossy crossover of luxury and blockchain: own a slice of Ferrari history via […] The post Will tokenized Ferraris pull real BTC and ETH flows? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Will tokenized Ferraris pull real BTC and ETH flows?

2025/10/30 04:30

Ferrari is making a pit stop in crypto, but only for its VIP clientele. The Italian automaker plans to issue a “Token Ferrari 499P” that its 100 most exclusive customers can use to bid on a Le Mans-winning race car.

It’s a glossy crossover of luxury and blockchain: own a slice of Ferrari history via digital tokens. But beyond the spectacle lies a harder question: does any of this move real Bitcoin or Ethereum liquidity, or is it just crypto theater?

Luxury goes on-chain, but behind closed doors

Ferrari’s flirtation with crypto isn’t new. In 2023, it began accepting Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDC for car purchases, handled by BitPay and instantly converted to fiat. The company never actually held crypto; the experience was closer to a payment gimmick than a liquidity event.

The upcoming 499P auction follows the same pattern. It’s run with fintech firm Conio under EU MiCA rules and open only to Ferrari’s “Hyperclub”, about 100 pre-vetted millionaires.

That exclusivity fits Ferrari’s brand but limits crypto’s role. Buyers will almost certainly fund bids in euros or stablecoins pre-cleared through KYC, not by sourcing fresh ETH on exchanges.

The process stays off-chain unless Conio requires crypto deposits or settles directly on public networks. The likely result: an elegant, fully compliant, barely visible transaction trail.

Liquidity and provenance

Tokenization advocates argue it can turn illiquid trophies into tradeable investments. Fractional ownership lets investors buy small stakes in art, cars, or collectibles once reserved for the ultra-wealthy.

Theoretically, a rare Ferrari could be divided into digital shares that trade 24/7 and even serve as loan collateral. Blockchains also embed provenance, serial numbers, ownership history, and authenticity data, appealing in markets rife with fakes.

It’s an alluring idea: prestige becomes programmable. Platforms like Masterworks already sell shares in paintings; others have tokenized whiskey casks, real estate, and fine watches. For luxury brands, tokenization doubles as marketing, a tech-savvy veneer of “financial accessibility” while keeping control over scarcity. Ferrari’s auction leans heavily on that narrative.

Record so far: thin liquidity

Reality hasn’t matched the sales pitch. Tokenized luxury projects often debut with fanfare and fade into illiquidity. CurioInvest’s 2015 Ferrari F12 TDF, split into 1.1 million ERC-20 tokens, was meant to prove fractionalization works.

Today, those tokens trade near $0.15 with negligible volume. The first tokenized art sale, Maecenas’s 2018 Warhol auction, attracted $1.7 million in bids but little secondary trading afterward.

Even projects touting multi-million dollar pipelines, like Curio’s plan for 500 cars worth $200 million, delivered only a handful of listings.

Without active markets, these tokens function more like unlisted securities than digital assets: they exist, but few trade them. Some studies now describe tokenized real assets as plagued by “persistent shallow markets.” The problem isn’t tech; it’s demand. Once the novelty fades, there’s rarely enough buyer depth to sustain prices.

Rails problem: KYC and convertibility

Ferrari’s structure faces the same bottlenecks. Conio will handle custody and settlement; it may allow bids in stablecoins, but the underlying flow can remain entirely fiat. A Hyperclub bidder could instruct Conio to debit a bank account, never touching BTC or ETH. Even if crypto is accepted, instant conversion to fiat, just like Ferrari’s earlier BitPay setup, would leave no on-chain footprint.

The bigger obstacle is convertibility. True crypto integration would mean that Ferrari tokens trade freely, can be swapped for USDC or ETH, or used as collateral in DeFi.

That’s unlikely. Heavy KYC and MiCA compliance will keep the 499P token within a fenced platform. Curio’s Ferrari tokens were geofenced from U.S. users and tradable only on approved venues, a model that isolates liquidity rather than connecting it.

Custody adds another layer of friction. A Ferrari token depends on a trusted intermediary to hold the car and honor redemption: the antithesis of crypto’s trustless design. Without broad recognition or redemption certainty, such tokens struggle to circulate. You can’t exactly post a Ferrari token as collateral on Aave.

Where the real flows happen

Tokenized Ferraris will only influence crypto markets if they require interaction with open liquidity, such as bidding in ETH or secondary trading on Ethereum itself.

Otherwise, the exercise is cosmetic. It’s unlikely to cause measurable shifts in BTC or ETH demand. At best, a few wealthy bidders might liquidate crypto holdings to fund purchases, creating a small uptick in exchange volume. At worst, the auction settles entirely off-chain, producing zero visible movement.

Ferrari’s approach mirrors a broader theme: brands using blockchain as a prestige technology rather than a liquidity engine.

The company gains publicity and a modern sheen without risking volatility or regulatory gray zones.

For the crypto market, that means little new capital inflow.

Could luxury tokenization ever matter?

The idea still holds theoretical promise. Tokenized Treasuries and real estate now account for billions in on-chain value because they plug into crypto’s existing liquidity networks.

If luxury tokens reached that level of interoperability, for instance, a Ferrari token that trades on Uniswap or serves as collateral in DeFi, then real BTC/ETH flows could emerge. But that requires regulatory clarity, credible custody, and genuine investor appetite.

For now, projects like the 499P auction are more about testing infrastructure than driving markets.

They show whether token issuance, legal transfer, and proof of ownership can coexist smoothly. If they can, the groundwork for open-market luxury tokens might be laid later.

Until then, these experiments are confined to narrow circles of compliant wealth.

Takeaway

Ferrari’s tokenization project reflects luxury’s cautious courtship with blockchain: controlled, exclusive, and mostly symbolic.

It will make for striking headlines and glossy marketing reels, but won’t send ripples through Bitcoin or Ethereum liquidity. Tokenized luxury still lacks the openness, volume, and yield conditions that made DeFi thrive.

A tokenized Ferrari may prove the tech works, but it won’t prove that the market cares. For now, the crypto engines stay idling: impressive machinery with very little motion.

The post Will tokenized Ferraris pull real BTC and ETH flows? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00