FinTech · Case study

Research allowance for FinTech: tokenisation as an R&D case.

Practical example based on real projects · anonymised, figures rounded · Last updated: 24 September 2026

A fintech funded the technical development of tokenised securities by delineating the technology from the business model, on an eligible base around €0.75 million.

€260,000

research allowance granted

€750,000

eligible base

Up to 35%

SME funding rate

Get a free funding assessment Read the story

At a glance

The mandate in figures

IndustryFinTech / tokenisationTokenised securities

Research allowance granted€260,000Fully claimable, credited against tax, surplus refunded

Eligible base€750,000

ScenarioCertified; part not recognised

Projects1

SME funding rateUp to 35%

About the company

The company, and the R&D underneath

The company develops technical infrastructure to represent real-asset investments as tokenised securities and make them tradable. The eligible core is not the business model but the technology behind it: the decentralised, tamper-proof issuance and settlement of security tokens with all the technical requirements for integrity, traceability and reliability.

A part of the development was contracted out. So the question arose of which share of this contract research is actually eligible.

The challenge

Where the funding really sat

FinTech applications have a particular trap: mixing business model and technology. Eligible is not the financial innovation as such, not the legal structuring and not the marketing, but solely the technical development work with scientific-technical uncertainty. This line must be drawn clearly.

On top came the contract research. Not every external service solves an independent technical problem, some is implementation to specification. A blanket treatment would have weakened the application.

Novelty Technical risk / uncertainty Systematic approach

Our approach

How we built the case

We consistently focused the application on the technical core: the decentralised issuance and settlement of tokenised securities with the associated technical uncertainties. Business model, legal structuring and distribution stayed out, they are not eligible and would only have offered attack surface.

We treated the contract research in a differentiated way: where external partners solved an independent technical problem, we presented the work as eligible; where it was more about implementation to specification, we classified it openly as such. In the decision, as expected under a differentiated view, part of the contract research was not recognised, while the viable part and the in-house work were.

How the case moved

↻

Focused

Technology, not business model

↻

Split

Contract research differentiated

✓

Certified

Core granted, part not

What made up the eligible base

In-house ~75%Contract ~20%

In-house personnel workContract research (recognised)Not recognised

Eligible base around €0.75 million, predominantly in-house work; part of the contract research was not recognised. Split shown is illustrative.

The result

A €260,000 research allowance.

The eligible base is around €750,000, predominantly from in-house work and mostly incurred after 27 March 2024. At the 35% SME rate, this yields around €260,000 of research allowance. The partial non-recognition of the contract research did not damage the core of the funding, because it was cleanly separated from the start.

Eligible base €750,000 · SME rate Up to 35%

Certified; part not recognisedThe outcome of the mandate.

Eligible base €750,000Recognised cost the allowance is calculated on.

SME rate Up to 35%Applied to the eligible base.

Key takeaways

What other companies can learn

FinTech is eligible, but only at the right place. Three points are decisive:

01

Separate technology from business model

Eligible is the technical development with an open outcome, not the financial innovation, the legal structure or distribution. This separation belongs at the core of the application.

02

Treat contract research in a differentiated way

An honest split into viable and weaker engagements protects overall credibility and thus the recognised part.

03

Expect partial cuts

That not every external service is recognised is normal. What matters is that the core, usually the in-house work, stays stable.

More on Research Allowance: The guide Research Allowance: requirements, rates and application explains the programme step by step. How we support your project is covered under Research Allowance consulting.

“

FinTech sits at the intersection of law, finance and technology, and exactly there the delineation of eligible research matters most.

BeFunded On the research allowance

FAQ

Research Allowance: your questions

The most common questions on this kind of case. Short answer first, detail after.

Yes, insofar as the technical development goes beyond the state of the art and carries a scientific-technical uncertainty. Business model, legal structuring and distribution are not eligible.

The technical development work on it can be eligible if it concerns a new or substantially improved process with an open outcome. The pure financial innovation as such is not.

The eligible base is reduced by that share. The recognised part and the in-house work stay funded. A differentiated presentation minimises the risk.

Eligible is only what solves a technical problem with an open outcome. Anything pursuing economic, legal or distribution goals does not belong in the application.

Keep reading

More case studies

Biotechnology

Mechanics, control and biology funded as one interdisciplinary R&D project.