Author: NingNing

In July 2025, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stood at the podium in Washington, announcing "Project Crypto" with a slightly excited voice—aiming to fully "move on-chain" in the U.S. financial markets. The audience erupted in applause, as if the spring of blockchain finance had truly arrived.

However, if you observe closely what is happening, you will notice an interesting phenomenon: within the same SEC framework of "full-chain finance," the market is diverging into two completely different worlds.

On one side, Robinhood boldly promotes U.S. stock tokenization in Europe, Coinbase builds the Base ecosystem to redefine on-chain finance, and South Korea's Upbit challenges dollar hegemony with GIWA. The path they have chosen can be called "U.S. stock tokenization"—reinventing stock trading in the native blockchain world.

On the other side, Nasdaq cautiously tests tokenization schemes, and Hong Kong's HashKey explores innovation within a compliance framework. They are following the "tokenized U.S. stocks" route—attempting to dress traditional finance in new blockchain clothing.

The differences between these two paths are far greater than you might imagine.

New Players' Game: Reinventing Stocks in the Blockchain World

Robinhood: Tired of the Rules? Let's Play Somewhere Else

On that sunny afternoon in June last year, when Robinhood announced its plan to launch U.S. stock tokenization on Arbitrum in Cannes, France, traditional brokers in Silicon Valley must have felt a chill.

This company, once mocked by Wall Street as a "retail trading arcade," showcased the core advantage of emerging fintech: wherever the rules are friendliest, that's where you play.

U.S. securities laws too strict? No problem, head to Europe. MiFID II relatively lenient? Then build infrastructure there. Arbitrum L2's technology mature enough? Perfect, 24/7 trading, instant settlement, zero commissions—discard all the cumbersome processes of traditional stock trading.

Robinhood did not attempt to overhaul the decades-old infrastructure of Wall Street; instead, it directly reinvented stocks in the blockchain world. This approach is simple and straightforward, yet extraordinarily effective.

Coinbase: Not Just Tokenization, But a Financial Operating System

If Robinhood is an opportunist, then Coinbase demonstrates systemic ambition.

Brian Armstrong is an interesting figure; he never hides his ambitions. At the Base App launch, he directly stated that he wants Coinbase to become "the world's number one financial services app in the next 5-10 years."

The Base public chain is not just a simple Ethereum L2; it is a complete financial ecosystem experiment. The OP Stack provides the technical foundation, 1-second block times ensure user experience, and 110 million verified users bring natural liquidity. More importantly, the Base App is evolving into a "Western version of WeChat"—trading, payments, social, DeFi, everything included.

When Armstrong says he wants to tokenize his company's stock, this is not a simple tokenization project; it is a demonstration to the world: we not only want to tokenize your stocks but also build a complete on-chain financial world, making traditional finance a thing of the past.

GIWA: Asia's Financial Sovereignty Technology Declaration

On the surface, Upbit's GIWA appears to be just another L2 based on OP Stack, with 1-second block times and support for the Korean won stablecoin, seemingly a simple imitation of Coinbase's BASE. However, if you understand South Korea's position in the global financial system, you will grasp the true significance of this project.

Upbit controls 80% of the crypto trading volume in South Korea, a market dominance that is rare in any country. When they launched GIWA and claimed to support the Korean won stablecoin, they were essentially issuing a technical challenge to dollar hegemony. In an era where U.S. financial infrastructure and the dollar itself are rapidly moving on-chain, GIWA represents a technological expression of the Asian financial market.

These three companies share a common trait: they all have the freedom to choose. Displeased with the rules here? Move somewhere else. Unsatisfied with existing infrastructure? Build your own. The freedom to choose is the greatest weapon of emerging fintech.

The Dilemma of Old Players: Giants Bound by History

Nasdaq: Wanting to Innovate, but Dancing with Shackles

Now let's look at the reality facing Nasdaq.

Founded in 1971, this exchange manages over 5,400 listed companies, with a total market capitalization exceeding $25 trillion. Millions of investors rely on its system for trading every day, and hundreds of market makers earn profits on its platform; the lifeblood of U.S. tech stocks is tied to it.

This weight is both its glory and its curse.

While Robinhood can boldly experiment with 24/7 trading in Europe, Nasdaq must consider the interests of existing market makers. When Coinbase builds a DeFi ecosystem on Base, Nasdaq must ensure that the trillion-dollar clearing system of DTCC remains unaffected. When GIWA challenges dollar hegemony, Nasdaq must accept triple oversight from the SEC, FINRA, and self-regulatory organizations.

Even more problematic is the burden of history. For 50 years, every technological upgrade at Nasdaq has followed the same pattern: incremental innovation, complete compliance. From telephone quotes to electronic trading, from single market makers to ECN networks, every step has been cautious, never radical. This gene is deeply ingrained; suddenly becoming a blockchain native? Almost impossible.

The Triple Shackles of Regulation

Any technological decision at Nasdaq must pass through three hurdles, each capable of stifling true innovation.

The legal framework is the strictest hurdle. The Securities Act of 1933 requires all securities offerings to be registered, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regulates exchange behavior, and FINRA's technical standards are detailed down to every line of code. Any innovation that does not comply with these regulations is a dead end.

The systemic risk hurdle is the most fearful. Nasdaq carries the core trading of U.S. tech stocks; any technical failure could trigger market panic. The "too big to fail" label turns every technical decision into a cautious risk assessment.

The vested interests hurdle is the hardest. Traditional clearing companies are reluctant to give up intermediary fees, custodial banks do not want to lose trillion-dollar asset management rights, and market makers want to protect their profit models. Every true innovation requires the nod of these rent-seekers, which is itself the greatest irony.

Fundamental Conflict of Two Technological Philosophies

When you compare the technological solutions of these two camps, the differences are stark.

"U.S. Stock Tokenization": Native Blockchain Thinking

Taking Coinbase as an example, their tech stack looks like this:

Base L2 as the underlying layer, native smart contracts as the middle layer, and Base App providing the user interface. The entire system is designed from the ground up for the blockchain world, operating 24/7, cross-chain interoperability, programmable assets, and integrated DeFi protocols. This is reinventing finance in the blockchain world.

"Tokenized U.S. Stocks": Blockchain Packaging of Traditional Systems

Nasdaq's solution is completely different. Based on our analysis, it is most likely to adopt a customized version of Hyperledger Fabric as the underlying layer, keeping the existing DTCC clearing system unchanged, while performing some "tokenization theatrics" on the upper layer.

The result is a hybrid: it has blockchain terminology but maintains the operational logic of traditional finance. Trading hours are still 9 to 5, KYC processes are more complex than before, only institutional investors can participate, and retail investors remain excluded.

In simple terms, this is not blockchain finance; it is an upgrade of a traditional database wrapped in blockchain concepts.

The Future is Here, Just Unevenly Distributed

When we extend our view to the next 5-10 years, the differences between the two paths will become even more apparent.

The "U.S. stock tokenization" camp is building a brand new financial world. Global 24/7 stock trading, programmable stock assets, the popularization of micro-investments, and the free flow of cross-chain assets. This is a decentralized, borderless, programmable financial future.

The "tokenized U.S. stocks" camp is performing a technological upgrade of the traditional financial system. Faster clearing speeds, more transparent trading records, stricter compliance monitoring. But the power structure remains unchanged, the distribution of interests remains unchanged, and the barriers to entry remain unchanged. This is a more efficient but fundamentally unchanged traditional financial system.

When Nasdaq completes its so-called "full tokenization" transformation, it may find that what it has created is merely a more complex, more expensive, yet fundamentally unchanged upgrade of the traditional financial system.

Meanwhile, Robinhood, Coinbase, and GIWA have long established their financial empires in the new world.

Conclusion

The SEC's Project Crypto paints a beautiful vision, but reality is evolving in two starkly different ways. One side is redefining financial rules in new territories, while the other is dressing new technology in old frameworks.

This reminds me of a saying: true revolutions never happen in the conference rooms of old institutions, but are born in the exploration of new territories.

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。