Recently, every time I open Twitter, the screen is filled with discussions about tokenized US stocks. It is not an exaggeration to say that if you haven't been discussing this topic in the past few days, you might be out of touch with the market.
"US stocks on-chain" is the biggest hot topic in the market this week. Robinhood has launched stock tokenization services in Europe, while xStocks has also simultaneously landed on Kraken and Bybit; Solana DEX and the Arbitrum ecosystem have begun listing trading pairs like AAPLx and TSLAx, rapidly spreading this new narrative of stock tokenization.
However, if you only see the hype and haven't understood the structure, you might become a victim in this narrative.
In my view, stock tokenization is essentially not about "issuing a token," but rather a stress test for on-chain finance:
Can the Web3 world truly support the issuance, trading, pricing, and redemption of mainstream financial assets?
Not just hype, but a structural stress test for on-chain finance
From my perspective, our industry narrative is in a constant cycle of development. As early as 2019, both Binance and FTX attempted to tokenize US stocks, but were ultimately halted by regulators. The Mirror Protocol simulated US stock prices with synthetic assets, but also perished alongside the collapse of Terra and SEC regulations. This is not a new concept; it was just that the industry was not mature enough at that time.
Today's stock tokenization is not a grassroots experiment, but a compliant path led by licensed institutions like Robinhood and Backed Finance. This is a crucial turning point.
Taking Robinhood as an example, the stock tokenization service it launched in Europe follows an unprecedented closed-loop path of "broker-dealer self-operation + on-chain issuance."
They are not simply posting a price on-chain; instead, Robinhood is licensed in the EU, purchasing actual US stocks, and issuing 1:1 mapped tokens on-chain. From custody and issuance to clearing and settlement, as well as user interaction, the entire process is integrated, making the trading experience essentially a combination of a securities account and a wallet.
Initially, they deployed these tokens on Arbitrum to ensure that on-chain trading speed and costs are controllable, and they plan to migrate to a self-built Robinhood Chain later, meaning they will also control the entire infrastructure.
Although voting rights cannot be opened yet to avoid governance-related regulations, the overall structure is already taking shape: it is like establishing an almost independently functioning "on-chain securities trading system" at the structural level.
For the crypto industry, this is the first time we see a traditional internet brokerage not only having autonomy on the issuance side but also deconstructing the on-chain structure of assets.
From grassroots experiments to compliant closed loops
The recent surge in stock tokenization is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not a coincidence. Essentially, it is the resonance of several core variables occurring at the same time. The so-called timing, location, and harmony of people is probably just that.
First, there has been a loosening of regulatory measures and a clear direction. For example, Europe’s MiCA has officially landed, and the US SEC is no longer hammering down indiscriminately, starting to release signals that "negotiations can happen, and actions can be taken."
Robinhood's ability to quickly launch stock token services in the EU relies on the securities license it obtained in Lithuania; xStocks being integrated by both Kraken and Bybit is also due to its compliant structure built in Switzerland and Jersey.
At the same time, because on-chain funds are indeed looking for new asset outlets, the structure of on-site funds has changed. The gap between traditional financial markets and non-MEME crypto markets will only continue to narrow.
Looking at the present, there are a bunch of projects on-chain without fundamentals but with extremely high FDV, and liquidity is piled up with nowhere to go. More conservative funds are starting to look for "anchored and logical" asset allocation outlets. At this time, traditional players like Robinhood and xStocks, with their compliant structures and trading experiences, bring attractiveness to stock tokens. They are familiar, stable, have narrative space, and can be paired with stablecoins and DeFi.
The integration of TradFi and Crypto has deepened significantly. From BlackRock to JPMorgan, from UBS to MAS, traditional financial giants are no longer standing by and watching; they are genuinely building chains, running pilots, and engaging in infrastructure development. As the most mainstream and recognizable asset, stocks will clearly become a priority choice for tokenization.
Is the on-chain migration of traditional assets an opportunity for crypto or a threat to projects?
Jiayi's subjective viewpoint:
Looking ahead, stock tokenization is unlikely to follow an explosive growth curve, but it may become a highly resilient path for infrastructure evolution in the Web3 world.
The significance of this narrative lies in its ability to leverage two important structural changes: first, the boundaries of assets are genuinely beginning to migrate on-chain; second, the traditional financial system is willing to use on-chain methods to organize part of the trading and custody processes. Once these two things are established, they become irreversible.
So, is it good or bad for stocks to come in and compete for liquidity in crypto projects?
In my view, this is a typical double-edged sword. It brings higher quality assets but will also subtly rewrite the flow structure of on-chain funds.
From a positive perspective:
The entry of traditional finance's "blue-chip assets" provides new outlets for on-chain funds and adds some choices for "stable asset" allocation. In a market where narratives rotate too quickly and funds drift long-term, these clearly structured assets with real anchors help liquidity regain the basic coordinates of "where to allocate and what can be allocated."
This will also bring about a "catalyst effect." The strong narrative asset of US stock tokenization raises the benchmark for the entire on-chain ecosystem, which will inevitably push the overall quality of Web3 projects upward. Let the garbage projects be eliminated by the market, to be honest.
Crypto players can directly purchase stocks in a Crypto Native manner, reducing the liquidity drain of US stocks on the large pool of crypto.
But conversely:
It will also put pressure on crypto-native projects. Not only will the narrative be snatched, but the structure of on-chain funds and user preferences will also be gradually reshaped. Especially when the liquidity of tokenized stocks rises and starts to run perpetual contracts, lending, and portfolio allocations, it will directly compete with native assets for stablecoin traffic, mainstream users, and attention on-chain.
For project parties: financing will become more difficult. When AAPLx, TSLAx, and potentially tokenized private equity from OpenAI or SpaceX appear in the on-chain asset pool, investors' and users' intuitive judgments about "what is worth investing in" and "what has a pricing anchor" will shift.
Stock tokenization prompts us to rethink: is Web3 a system capable of supporting mainstream assets and real trading behaviors? Can we use an open financial structure to rebuild a securities system with lower friction and higher transparency than traditional markets?
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
