Community members often ask me a question: With so many tokenized US stocks now, everyone says they are stock endorsers. Is it enough to just choose one? This question is actually quite interesting. Because in the past, when people paid attention to tokenized stocks, their first reaction was: Are there real stocks behind it This is certainly important. But after studying some product structures recently, I found that the real difference may not be here. Because '1:1' only solves the problem of whether assets are present or not. But whether a financial product is truly effective or not depends on two things: What power does what you have in your hand represent. And, when you actually trade, can it take over your funds. Give a simple example. It's also NVDA. The tokenized NVDA you buy on different platforms appears to be 'one coin represents one share' on the surface. But the legal structure behind it may be completely different. Some are contractual exposures, which are essentially closer to debt; Some are voucher structures, not direct stock ownership; Some use SPV, custody, and entrusted mechanisms to isolate risks; Although some emphasize 1:1 reserves, external investors may not be able to fully see information such as the issuer, custodian, repayment order, and redemption path. So I think: To judge tokenized stocks, one cannot just look at one sentence: "". What really matters is: If there are extreme situations in the future, what does the token in your hand represent. Another issue that I think many people overlook is the trading experience. Many people choose a platform and first look at: Whose transaction fee is low Whose bid ask spread is small This is actually not wrong. But if your funding scale increases, these indicators may not be enough. Because trading for a few hundred dollars and trading for tens of thousands of dollars are completely different worlds. Small funds look at the first price. Big capital depends on market depth. Recently, I came across a set of disk port test data for NVDA, MSFT, META, and TSLA. One thing left a deep impression on me. If we only look at the best price difference, the gap between several platforms is not as big as we imagine. Different targets and platforms have their own advantages. So if you only look at the 'buying price', it's easy to draw a conclusion: Everyone is similar. But when the order size increases, such as to $10000 or $50000, differences begin to emerge. Because at this point, it is not the first quote that affects the outcome, but rather: Will your order have the rim pierced. What is the actual sliding point after the transaction. Is there sufficient liquidity to undertake. One obvious point in the data is: Some platforms perform significantly better in executing large orders. This actually conforms to a very basic law of the financial market: Liquidity is always more important than superficial pricing. Why is that? I think the core is still the underlying architecture. If a product primarily relies on its own order book, its depth depends on the current market orders. But if the execution system behind it is connected to traditional financial markets, such as securities firms DMA、 The way in which real stock custody channels obtain liquidity will be different. Simple understanding: The reserve solution is: Does this asset really exist The transaction architecture addresses: Is this asset useful Of course, these data do not necessarily indicate that any one company will always be ahead. The market is changing every day. The depth of trading position will be affected by market conditions, volatility, and market making strategies. A single test can only demonstrate performance at a certain point in time. But it at least reminds us: The competition for tokenized stocks in the future will not just be about who can move stocks onto the chain first. My own opinion is: The true value of tokenized stocks lies not in replicating a traditional stock account. But it's about whether traditional finance can be connected to the on chain world in the future. for example 24/7 trading hours; USDT settlement; On chain asset portfolio; Use as collateral in the future; Global funds are more freely involved in traditional assets. These are the long-term significance of its existence. So when looking at a tokenized stock product in the future, I think we shouldn't just ask: Does it have a 1:1 stock You can also ask a few more questions: What are my rights? How to manage assets? Who is responsible if there is a problem? What would be the transaction experience if I buy $50000? Because financial products are never just advertised with numbers. But when it is actually used, can it withstand the amplification of capital scale. This is also the biggest feeling I have had recently when researching this direction.