The difference between cryptocurrency on chain (RWA) and securities firms in the US - liquidity section When introducing today, I found that many friends mentioned the issue of securities firm liquidity and asked me if the liquidity of securities firms is sufficient. In fact, this is a wrong question and also a habitual thinking of many friends after trading US stocks on the chain or exchange. Firstly, let's talk about securities firms. Compliant securities firms do not have liquidity issues because what they truly sell is not "liquidity created by themselves", but "a channel for compliant access to existing liquidity markets". That is to say, when users buy and sell US stocks, US bonds, or ETFs through compliant securities firms, it is not essentially trading in the securities firms' own pools, nor is it the securities firms themselves using inventory to compete with users. Instead, the securities firms integrate user orders into NYSE, Nasdaq, ARCA, CBOE, ATS, brokerage, clearing systems, and custody systems. Securities firms sell channels, accounts, clearing, custody, compliance, and execution capabilities, rather than creating a secondary market for Apple, Nvidia, VOO, QQQ, IBIT, and others themselves. So compliant securities firms don't need to worry about "whether anyone will take over" because liquidity is already in the US stock market. Users buy and sell Nvidia, and liquidity comes from the trading depth of Nvidia stocks themselves. Users buy and sell SPY, VOO, and QQ, and liquidity comes from the ETF's secondary market, market makers, and primary market redemption mechanism. Users buy and sell US Treasury ETFs, with liquidity coming from the underlying bond market, ETF market making, and institutional arbitrage. As long as securities firms comply with this system, liquidity is not a problem for securities firms and there is no liquidity issue. On the contrary, what really needs to be concerned about liquidity are the on chain US stocks, RWAs, or US stock mapping assets on exchanges. Because these products are not simply integrated into the existing market, but rather create a new trading scenario and even repackage a layer of rights certificates. This is what I have been saying before, that the liquidity provided by each different on chain US stock provider is different. Even the so-called "US stocks" of each company are not interconnected. For example, the channels behind xStocks, Dinari dShares, and Robinhood Stock Tokens, which are also on chain US stocks, are not the same. Therefore, even if they are all called "Tesla Tokens" or "Apple Tokens", it does not mean that they can be interconnected. Users cannot directly use TSLAx on Kraken as TSLA dShare on Dinari. Dinari's dShare cannot be directly taken to the Robinhood platform to become Robinhood Stock Token. It is even more unacceptable to withdraw Robinhood's Stock Token as a real stock and transfer it to the account of a US stock broker. It's like three companies each issuing three 'vouchers tracking Nvidia prices'. The price depends on Nvidia, but the voucher itself is not the same voucher. Naturally, there are different liquidity pools, which have nothing to do with traditional NYSE or Nasdaq. The difference between them is very significant. For example, if a user buys a share of Nvidia from a securities firm, at least in terms of legal relationships, the user is buying a genuine security interest held through the securities firm, clearing, and custody system. But when a user buys an Nvidia Token on the chain, they may be buying a price mapping, a debt certificate, an SPV share, an economic exposure promised to be redeemed by a certain platform, or just a contract linked to the real stock price. The liquidity of securities firms is' external market liquidity ', while the liquidity of RWA is' internal structural liquidity'. Securities firms engage in the world's most mature, deep, and market making securities market with the participation of market makers and institutions, while RWA involves project side market making, exchange matching, and user trading. As long as the on chain assets cannot be stably connected with real securities, cash, or compliant redemption paths, the liquidity of RWA will never be the original US stock liquidity, but a repackaged secondary market liquidity. That's also why I said that the supervision of overseas securities firms by the China Securities Regulatory Commission is beneficial for RWA, but the benefits are very limited. Because the regulatory crackdown this time is not on the US stock market itself, nor on its liquidity, but on the provision of cross-border securities services to Chinese residents without a license within China. The real demand of most users is overseas asset allocation, which is to buy US stocks, US bonds ETF， It's about holding US dollar assets, not naturally wanting to buy an on chain certificate. Only when the entrance of compliant securities firms is compressed, some users may seek alternative paths, but alternative paths do not necessarily mean natural migration to RWA. More precisely, compliant securities firms address "how users can legally buy real US stocks," while RWA addresses "whether users can accept an on chain rights certificate to gain economic exposure to US stocks. Although they may seem like the same thing, the gap between them is very large. So compliant securities firms are not worried about liquidity because they do not need to create their own liquidity, but simply connect users to existing markets. RWA must worry about liquidity because it needs to remap real market assets, prices, transactions, redemptions, and settlements onto the chain. In conclusion, securities firms sell compliance portals, while RWA (most of the time) sells asset mapping.