OKXICE will launch its tokenized securities trading platform on November 23rd. This article discusses the obstacles in the tokenization process and why OKXICE is doing this. In early October, the joint venture between OKX and ICE announced the launch of a tokenized trading platform under the SEC's innovation exemption mechanism. Following this, many well-known US-listed companies expressed opposition, leading many to believe that the tokenization trend was stalled. However, this is not the case. Here's my understanding: OKXICE's choice of the SEC's US exchange exemption path explicitly grants issuing companies the right to object. It's not surprising that it received opposition from some US-listed companies if it adopted this approach. In fact, many of the opposing US-listed companies are not entirely against the tokenization process; rather, they have some disagreements they don't understand. Among the companies that have publicly explained their stance, AAOI's statement is representative: they are unclear about how this arrangement will affect stock prices, liquidity, and volatility; they worry that investors might mistakenly believe the company is involved in or endorses the product; and they haven't seen sufficiently clear corporate or shareholder interests to offset these uncertainties. JPMorgan Chase's stance was more restrained: they remain optimistic about the potential of tokenization, but will not participate in this arena at this stage, continuing to evaluate other opportunities. This is understandable. Tokenization platforms offer more direct returns, while the returns of stock-issuing companies are realized through a more complex process. Platforms can expand trading instruments, acquire customers, and generate trading revenue; listed companies, on the other hand, need to demonstrate that broader trading access truly improves investor coverage, liquidity, or capital costs. It's understandable that these companies may not see this advantage in the early stages. So why did OKXICE choose the "innovation exemption" path? I understand it's because the business capabilities they seek are broader than simply "providing US stock price exposure to overseas users." When ICE announced its strategic partnership with OKX in March, it clearly stated its direction: combining OKX's global customer channels and blockchain infrastructure with ICE's market technology and institutional network to explore providing relevant market services to US clients. The core objective is to gain on-chain trading access in the US market. If the primary goal is simply to offer products linked to overseas stocks, other legal structures could indeed be considered. For example, Coinbase and Robinhood's current models don't require the consent of the issuing stock company; they directly launch tokenized stocks. However, their tokenization is only available to non-US users. For instance, Robinhood's current Robinhood Chain product documentation explicitly states that Stock Tokens are tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, providing economic exposure to the underlying stock but not granting investors legal or beneficial rights to the underlying stock issuer; the product cannot be sold to US individuals. Coinbase's situation is closer to a third-party custodial equity structure. Its official description states that the tokens are backed one-to-one by real shares, held through regulated custody and trust arrangements, and circulated on Base; issuance uses Regulation S and is not open to US individuals. See? Robinhood and Coinbase's current tokenized products are not open to US users. OKXICE, on the other hand, wants to directly enter the US market, offering tokenized products to US retail and institutional clients—a market that needs to be addressed independently. This is actually a publicly debated issue between regulators and the industry. Coinbase previously raised similar questions with the SEC: since traditional securities transfers and DTCC tokenization arrangements don't require individual approval from issuing companies, why does the new on-chain transaction path add a veto right for issuing companies? From the SEC's perspective, its chairman, Atkins, has explicitly stated that this temporary exemption is a transitional arrangement towards future long-term rules. This means that while adopting this mechanism may face some resistance now, it will automatically gain priority under future long-term rules once the SEC introduces them. Therefore, if the destination is an on-chain stock market within the United States, notifying the issuing company is a necessary institutional cost for OKXICE to choose this path. From an industry development perspective, this round of opposition constitutes real resistance to the US stock AMM route, but these are only temporary obstacles in the development of industry trends and will not affect the RWA tokenization trend. Several paths will continue to run in parallel for the foreseeable future: 1) Overseas products will prioritize meeting the access and portfolio needs of global investors, such as the Robinhood and Coinbase models; 2) Institutions like the DTC will improve the efficiency of existing securities equity transfers; 3) Products led by issuing companies will improve shareholder services; 4) The model being promoted by OKXICE, where TSV verifies whether on-chain stock trading can achieve sufficient liquidity while protecting investors, will likely see more and more US-listed companies embracing this trend in the future.