Written by: @BlazingKevin_, the Researcher at Movemaker

Under the expectation of "deregulation" that Trump may bring, the long-dormant tokenized stock sector is reigniting in 2025 with a new face of RWA. Introducing the most liquid assets globally—U.S. stocks—into the crypto industry, allowing crypto users worldwide to trade anytime and anywhere, is undoubtedly a grand and enticing narrative.

However, this path is not smooth. From the early STO concept to the synthetic asset experiments of DeFi Summer, and the brief attempts by FTX and Binance, the history of tokenized stocks is fraught with twists and turns. Now, with subtle changes in the regulatory environment, a new round of competition has begun.

In this competition, three forces are emerging, representing three distinctly different paths: Robinhood's "dimensionality reduction" from the internet brokerage giant, the "open Lego" of DeFi-native xStocks (issued by Backed Finance and distributed by Kraken, among others), and the "hybrid model" of the mysterious newcomer StableStocks, supported by institutions like Matrix Partners.

This article will delve into these three players, detailing their legal core, business models, and core differences, and exploring who is most likely to come out on top in this high-stakes game.

I. The Four Waves of Tokenized Stocks

To understand today's competitive landscape, we must look back at history. The development of tokenized stocks has roughly gone through four stages:

1. STO Emergence (2017-2018): The concept of STO (Security Token Offering) emerged, aiming to bring traditional securities onto the blockchain in a compliant manner. However, due to a lack of unified standards, high compliance costs, and a lack of liquidity in the secondary market, this attempt quickly came to a halt.
2. Synthetic Asset Experimentation (2020 DeFi Summer): Projects represented by Synthetix and Mirror Protocol attempted to mint "synthetic assets" pegged to U.S. stock prices through over-collateralized crypto assets. This model circumvented the regulatory challenges of directly holding stocks but ultimately failed due to an inability to find product-market fit. Insufficient on-chain trading demand led to a lack of incentives for market makers, resulting in liquidity depletion, and most projects eventually delisted related assets citing "regulatory considerations."
3. CEX Trial Period (2020-2021): Centralized exchanges like FTX and Binance launched tokenized stocks through partnerships with licensed financial institutions, offering centralized custody. This model initially attracted significant trading volume (FTX's monthly trading volume reached $94 million in October 2021), but soon faced immense regulatory pressure due to direct competition with traditional exchanges like Nasdaq. Binance's service was halted just three months after launch, and FTX's business ended with the collapse of its empire.
4. RWA Renaissance (Present): Under new regulatory expectations, the sector has restarted. This time, the core narrative has shifted to RWA, emphasizing the issuance of tokens backed 1:1 by real stocks through compliant legal frameworks, prioritizing asset security and transparency.

II. Overview of the Current Market Landscape

According to data from RWA.xyz, the current total issuance of stock RWAs is approximately $374 million, but growth is slow. The market landscape is characterized by fragmentation:

• Exodus (EXOD): The largest by market cap (approximately $258 million), but its model is more symbolic. Users can migrate EXOD stocks listed on the NYSE to the Algorand chain, but this is merely a "digital avatar," lacking any on-chain rights and cannot be traded on-chain.
• Dinari: A model of compliance exploration. The company is registered in the U.S. and has obtained a valuable broker-dealer license. However, to meet strict regulations, its issued dShares cannot be freely traded on-chain; all transactions must occur through its website during U.S. stock trading hours. This makes its product experience no better than traditional brokers like Futu, resembling a traditional broker using cryptocurrency as a deposit channel, thus limiting its market size.
• Montis Group: A digital asset issuer based in the UK, with a market cap of about $55 million, focused on "tokenizing" real assets like European stocks and bonds. However, similar to Exodus, Montis has only achieved tokenization of its own stocks, and these tokens cannot be freely traded on-chain. For Web3 investors seeking liquidity and composability, this model holds little practical significance at this stage.

It is against this backdrop that the entry of Robinhood, xStocks, and StableStocks brings three more imaginative paradigms to the market.

III. The Three Players—Deep Deconstruction of Three Models

We will analyze these three major players from three dimensions: legal core, business model, and composability.

1. Robinhood: Derivative Contracts + B2C + Controlled Ecosystem

• Legal Core and Compliance Path: There are many companies globally exploring the combination of "crypto + stocks," but Robinhood's approach stands out. It has not chosen to directly issue tokens representing stock ownership; instead, it has entered the market in a more flexible way: mapping the underlying assets through derivatives. The product launched in Europe is essentially not a securities transaction but an over-the-counter financial contract issued under the EU's MiFID II framework. In other words, what users purchase is not a "stock token," but a digital certificate that tracks specific stock price fluctuations. This legal design allows Robinhood to bypass complex securities compliance barriers and open overseas markets with minimal resistance.
• Technical Architecture and "Walled Garden":
• Underlying Chain Choice: In terms of technical selection, Robinhood utilizes Arbitrum as its landing network. Compared to the Ethereum mainnet, it offers higher performance, lower transaction costs, and inherits the mature security of Ethereum. It has deployed hundreds of tokens at a Gas cost of just a few dollars, showcasing clear efficiency advantages.
• Permission Control: However, this system is not an open DeFi paradise. Strict whitelist rules are written into the smart contracts, and all transactions must verify whether the recipient has passed Robinhood's compliance certification. In other words, this is a typical "controlled zone," where users must complete KYC to enter, and the ecosystem is tightly controlled by Robinhood, sacrificing interoperability with the external DeFi world.
• Future Ambitions: More intriguingly, Robinhood's next move is brewing. The company is planning to launch its own Layer 2 network—Robinhood Chain—based on the Arbitrum tech stack. This move is not just about reducing costs; it sends a stronger signal: Robinhood wants to take control of the underlying technology to provide a tailored environment for its future large-scale RWA strategy.
• Strategic Depth and Vision: If this model is simply understood as a "closed garden," it underestimates Robinhood's ambitions. CEO Vlad Tenev has repeatedly mentioned that the company's vision is "Capital as a Service." Tokenization is not just a gimmick; it is an important tool for Robinhood to advance financial democratization, especially for those non-liquid assets long locked in high-net-worth groups. Imagine if ordinary users could gain indirect exposure to equity in unlisted giants like SpaceX or OpenAI through derivative tokens; the power structure of capital markets would be reshuffled.

Of course, the reality is not entirely optimistic. Top private equity firms often have ample funds, making it nearly impossible to actively "invite retail investors in." This means that tokenization solutions must bypass traditional issuance logic to reach ordinary investors. But this model also harbors risks: after launching OpenAI-related tokens, Robinhood immediately issued a statement clarifying that it was unrelated, exposing a problem—there may be a significant gap in information transparency and investor understanding in the derivatives model.

Compared to other platforms, Robinhood's approach differs from traditional on-chain securities attempts (like Synthetix's synthetic assets or Polymarket's prediction markets). It does not emphasize the complete openness of DeFi but aims to capture the market through a combination of "strong compliance + high user experience." Its logic resembles an extension of a fintech platform rather than a thorough on-chain fundamentalism.

If regulation permits or even gradually accepts, Robinhood will be the first to establish a super entrance covering retail investors, compliance, and RWA, potentially becoming the first stop for retail investors in Europe and the U.S. to enter tokenized finance.

One-sentence Comment: Robinhood's attempt is not merely about "moving stocks onto the blockchain," but an experiment in reshaping the traditional derivatives distribution model using crypto technology. It leverages blockchain to enhance product delivery and compliance efficiency, aiming far beyond the crypto circle itself, truly targeting a redefinition of the entire global financial system.

2. xStocks: Asset-Backed Tokens + B2B2C + Complete Composability

• Legal Core and Compliance Path: In the tokenized stock sector, xStocks has a unique positioning. Unlike some derivative platforms that only provide price mapping, it follows the path of complete mapping of physical assets. The entire structure is built by the Swiss compliance team Backed Finance, adhering to Switzerland's DLT legal framework, and it hosts real stocks through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) established in Liechtenstein. This SPV is solely responsible for one thing—holding the underlying assets themselves and is legally completely isolated from the issuing entity and trading platform. In other words, even if the operator encounters issues, investor rights can be independently protected. Investors receive not a "contract paper," but a priority secured debt certificate corresponding to the real assets.
• Technical Architecture and Transparency:
• Underlying Chain Choice: On the technical side, xStocks issues tokens on Solana. The reason is clear: high throughput, low cost, and extremely low confirmation delays make these features naturally suitable for frequent trading and DeFi composability.
• Foundation of Transparency: To ensure investors trust that their tokens are indeed backed by real reserves, xStocks has introduced Chainlink's proof of reserves, allowing anyone to verify the reserve status on-chain at any time, adding a layer of transparency endorsement to its "asset tokens."
• Open Contracts: On the other hand, as a standard SPL token, xStocks tokens can circulate freely on Solana, easily integrating with native DeFi protocols like Jupiter and Kamino, providing complete composability.
• Strategic Depth and Vision: From a business perspective, xStocks does not directly target the C-end in a closed loop but adopts a B2B2C distribution logic. The primary market token redemption is completed by Backed Finance targeting institutions, while secondary market trading relies on exchanges like Kraken and Bybit. This way, it can attract professional institutions while reaching a large number of retail investors through established exchanges, ultimately releasing liquidity in an open ecosystem. Data has already proven the potential of this model: after gaining support from mainstream platforms, its daily trading volume once exceeded $6 million. The longer-term vision is to develop this model into "tokenization as a service," providing standardized asset onboarding tools for financial institutions.

xStocks' approach stands in stark contrast to Robinhood. Robinhood's model resembles "digitalization of financial derivatives," locking users in with a controlled whitelist mechanism; whereas xStocks tokenizes real assets and maintains complete interoperability with DeFi. This means it naturally aligns more with the Web3 narrative of "open Lego," but it also needs to bear the regulatory gray areas and risk spillover issues in an open environment.

Whether this model can succeed depends on two points:

1. Can it truly establish deep liquidity? If tokenized assets are only issued unidirectionally, lacking sufficient counterparties and arbitrage mechanisms, their market significance will be very limited.

2. Can it win long-term regulatory tolerance? The current SPV structure has achieved legal isolation, but the future recognition of "tokenized securities" by various countries has yet to be unified. Once regulatory conflicts arise, the ecosystem may face significant fluctuations.

It is worth noting that xStocks' model may inspire broader application scenarios. For example, it provides a replicable paradigm for "asset-backed tokens" beyond stablecoins, particularly suitable for the tokenization of bonds, ETFs, and even art funds. Unlike "controlled tokens" launched by a single exchange, it emphasizes the free composability with DeFi modules, injecting a new source of liquidity into the entire crypto ecosystem.

One-sentence Comment: xStocks is not reshaping exchanges but providing a new asset layer for DeFi. It attempts to transparently and authentically bring the value of traditional finance onto the blockchain and shape a new market ecosystem through open composability. If Robinhood's direction is "business on-chain," then xStocks' logic is more like "assets on-chain."

3. StableStocks: Proxy Holding + B2C + Internal Composability Mechanism

• Legal Core: StableStocks adopts a unique "proxy holding + beneficiary" model. The platform establishes a dedicated SPV and collaborates with licensed brokers (such as Australia's HABIT TRADE) to open institutional accounts, actually purchasing and holding stocks. Ultimately, investors do not hold stocks directly but enjoy corresponding rights as beneficiaries. This arrangement allows StableStocks to operate without directly holding a complete broker license while relying on the compliance system of its partners, balancing compliance and flexibility.
• Business Model: StableStocks is positioned as a typical B2C model, packaging deposits, trading, custody, and derivative plays all within its own platform. Unlike some B2B2C solutions, StableStocks prefers to directly serve end users. In terms of ecosystem, it is closely tied to Binance and the BNB Chain.
• Composability: The core difference of StableStocks lies in its pursuit of an internally composable closed-loop system rather than complete external composability. The stock equity tokens held by users can be further deposited into the platform's "StableVault," allowing the minting of yield-bearing stStock. This is a "walled financial playground" logic—play is limited, but the experience is more controllable.

From a more systematic perspective, the model link of StableStocks can be broken down into five key stages:

1. Stock Acquisition and Source: The stocks come from real stocks held by licensed brokers:

• Australia's Habit Trade (holding 70%) is responsible for U.S. stock channels.
• Traditional banks (like ANZ and DBS) provide fiat settlement and funding channel support.
• The stock source is real, not synthetic assets.

1. Settlement and Custody Mechanism: Stocks are uniformly held by the SPV, isolating risks;

• Collaborating with Nasdaq's clearinghouse to ensure compliance and stability in the circulation of underlying assets.
• Ensuring a 1:1 correspondence to reduce counterparty default risk.

1. Tokenization and On-Chain Issuance: StableStocks maps the held stocks into stock tokens;

• Token issuance operates on the BNB Chain, gaining support from Binance's wallet and trading ecosystem;
• Each token is backed by actual assets, belonging to standard asset-backed tokens.

1. Stablecoin and Crypto Entry: Connecting with Coinbase's stablecoin channel, users can directly exchange USDC for stock tokens;

• This solves the funding conversion barrier between fiat users and crypto users.

1. User Side Usage and Expansion:

• Stock tokens can be held and traded in the Binance wallet;
• Besides investment itself, they can also be embedded in StableStocks' self-built DeFi modules (staking, yield enhancement).
• The user experience is closer to a combination of "Robinhood + DeFi-lite."

StableStocks takes a "middle path"—neither as closed as Robinhood, which only allows trading, nor as completely open as xStocks, which fully integrates with the entire DeFi Lego, but rather builds a semi-open system. For traditional financial investors, it provides a new way to enter the on-chain market; for crypto users, it offers a convenient entry to blue-chip stocks like Tesla, Apple, and McDonald's. Its core selling points are:

• Compliance: Leveraging the licensed broker system;
• Stability: Clearinghouse + SPV custody;
• Ease of Use: B2C closed loop;
• Innovation: Internally composable DeFi-lite.

One-sentence Comment: StableStocks is a middle route, attempting to find a balance between Robinhood's closed usability and xStocks' open complexity. It bets that users want a "DeFi-lite" experience—enjoying the yield enhancement brought by DeFi without bearing the full risks and complexities of open DeFi.

Triangular Comparison: StableStocks vs xStocks vs Robinhood

IV. Insurmountable Structural Barriers

Despite the different models, all current stock tokenization schemes face several common structural barriers that are difficult to resolve in the short term:

• The Contradiction Between Value Proposition and Actual Liquidity: Currently, all platforms face a classic "chicken or egg" dilemma. On one hand, for users who can conveniently trade U.S. stocks, the value proposition of tokenized stocks is unclear. On-chain trading not only fails to provide better rates but also leads to higher trading slippage due to a lack of liquidity, resulting in an experience far inferior to that of established internet brokerages. On the other hand, it is precisely because there is not a sufficiently strong value proposition to attract large-scale users and capital that on-chain liquidity has been slow to deepen, creating a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop: without users, there is no liquidity; without liquidity, users are even less attracted. Unless it can provide existing users with irreplaceable new utility, it will be difficult to break this deadlock.
• Structural Defects: Current tokenized stocks are essentially just "digital twins" of real stocks, but this replication has fundamental flaws. First, the promise of 24/7 trading is largely illusory. When the underlying stock market (such as Nasdaq) is closed, on-chain market makers cannot hedge their risk exposure and can only avoid risk by drastically widening spreads or withdrawing liquidity altogether, which significantly undermines the effectiveness of weekend and after-hours trading. Second, these tokens strip away complete shareholder rights. Users receive a claim to the economic value of the stock, rather than full ownership, including voting rights.
• Centralization Risks Under the "Decentralized" Cloak: Although operating on a decentralized blockchain, the trust foundation of these RWA models is highly concentrated in a series of off-chain entities. Whether it is the SPV issuing tokens, the third-party banks responsible for asset custody, the partner brokerages executing trades, or the bridges connecting fiat and the crypto world, each link is a potential point of centralization failure. If any of these centralized entities experience operational failures, legal disputes, or even bankruptcy, the on-chain tokens could instantly lose their value support.
• Potential Paradox of DeFi Composability: For open models like xStocks, the ultimate vision is to become the "money Lego" of the DeFi world. However, this composability faces a severe paradox. A DeFi lending protocol considering whether to accept TSLAx as collateral must not only assess the price volatility risk of Tesla stock itself but also evaluate the platform risk brought by its tokenized structure—namely, the risk of default by the issuer Backed Finance or its custodian. This dual exposure to "asset risk + platform risk" makes DeFi protocols extremely cautious when integrating these RWA assets. Additionally, the ambiguous legal status of these tokens also deters DeFi protocols, which fear regulatory backlash for "illegally operating securities business." This explains why no mainstream DeFi protocol has yet adopted them as core collateral, and the path to true composability remains long.

Conclusion: Which of the Three Models Will Win the Future?

The outcome of this competition may not depend on whose legal framework is more ingenious, but rather on who can first create irreplaceable value for users.

• Robinhood's path to victory lies in scaling. If its goal is merely to provide a familiar asset class in a novel form to tens of millions of existing users, it is likely to win in terms of user numbers.
• xStocks' path to victory lies in ecosystem building. If the narrative of "financial Lego" holds true, and a large number of DeFi protocols can use it as core collateral or underlying assets to build on-chain options, lending, and structured products, it will win the future of Web3.
• StableStocks' path to victory lies in user experience. If it can prove that "DeFi-lite" is a real market by providing a one-stop, low-threshold "trading + yield" experience, it may carve out a blue ocean between mainstream users and hardcore DeFi users.

At its core, the so-called "on-chain U.S. stocks" are still in the experimental stage, currently resembling a financial packaging under regulatory gaps rather than a mature market tool. The true game-changer will not be who first runs a proof of concept but who can deliver a complete trading system on-chain that integrates spot trading, short selling, leverage, and risk management. Only when the financial playability and functionality of on-chain stocks truly match or even surpass those of established Wall Street brokerages can this transformation be considered substantive. As it stands, those pioneers have only just begun to put their wheels on the track; the real race has yet to start.

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。