SEC Market Structure Proposal Draws Attention From Tokenized Stock Advocates

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-06-12Last updated on 2026-06-12

Abstract

The SEC has proposed eliminating two key equity market structure rules, Regulation NMS Rules 611 and 610(e), which govern order routing and the display of quotes. While the proposal is aimed at simplifying traditional markets and reducing costs, it has drawn attention from advocates for tokenized stocks. The reason is that current rules, which require checking the best prices across venues, are difficult to reconcile with on-chain trading models like automated market makers (AMMs). A more flexible structure could theoretically make it easier to design compliant blockchain-based systems for trading tokenized equities. However, the proposal is not specifically about crypto, and tokenized stocks would still need to meet numerous other securities regulations. The change is now open for public comment and faces a lengthy process before any final adoption.

TL;DR

  • The SEC has proposed rescinding Regulation NMS Rules 611 and 610(e), both tied to U.S. equity market structure.
  • The proposal is not a crypto rule, and the SEC did not frame it as a blockchain or tokenized-stock measure.
  • Industry analysts say the change could matter for tokenized equities because current routing and quote rules are difficult to reconcile with on-chain trading models.
  • The proposal is open for public comment and still faces a long rulemaking process before any final change.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rescinding two Regulation NMS rules that shape how traditional U.S. equity markets route and display orders, a move that could also become important for the future structure of tokenized stocks.

The SEC’s proposal focuses on Rule 611, known as the Order Protection or Trade-Through Rule, and Rule 610(e), which restricts locked and crossed quotations. These are equity-market-structure rules, not crypto rules, and the SEC’s press release does not describe the proposal as being designed for blockchain markets.

Still, the proposed rollback is drawing attention from digital asset market-structure watchers because tokenized equities and real-world-asset platforms must eventually fit into the same broader securities-market framework.

What The SEC Is Proposing

Rule 611 was adopted in 2005 and generally prevents trading centers from executing trades at prices inferior to protected quotes displayed on other venues. Rule 610(e) deals with locked or crossed quotations, where bids and offers across venues create market structure conflicts.

SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins said the rules have introduced unintended complexity after two decades of market evolution. The agency said the proposal is intended to simplify traditional equity market structure, reduce trading complexity, and lower costs for market participants.

The SEC estimated that removing the rules could save exchanges, alternative trading systems, broker-dealers, and OTC market makers between $54.2 million and $77 million annually in compliance, monitoring, and routing infrastructure costs.

The proposal will be open for a 60-day public comment period after publication in the Federal Register. That means it is not final, and the market will still have time to weigh in before any rule changes are adopted.

Why Tokenized Stocks Enter The Conversation

The tokenization angle is not part of the SEC’s stated rationale, so it needs careful handling. The possible relevance comes from how on-chain trading systems work compared with traditional equity venues.

Automated market makers, or AMMs, execute trades against liquidity pools using pricing formulas rather than routing each order across conventional venues to check the national best bid and offer. Under a strict trade-through framework, that model can be difficult to reconcile with tokenized versions of U.S. equities.

In other words, if a tokenized-stock AMM executes a trade at a price that does not match protected quotes elsewhere, it could create compliance problems under existing market-structure rules. A shift away from rigid per-trade routing requirements could, in theory, make it easier to design compliant blockchain-based equity trading systems.

That does not mean tokenized stocks suddenly become legal everywhere if the SEC finalizes the proposal. Exchanges, broker-dealers, alternative trading systems, custody providers, and tokenized-asset platforms would still need to satisfy a long list of securities-law requirements.

What Still Needs To Happen

The most important caveat is that the SEC proposal is still a proposal. It must go through the comment process, and the agency could revise, narrow, or abandon parts of it before any final rule is adopted.

There are also remaining exchange-level and FINRA rules that may require separate updates. A Regulation NMS change would not automatically remove every barrier facing tokenized equities or real-world-asset markets.

For crypto investors, the significance is therefore indirect but real. Traditional market-structure rules help determine what kinds of trading systems can legally operate in U.S. securities markets. If those rules become more flexible, the path for tokenized equities may become easier to map.

The SEC is not proposing a crypto tokenization regime here. But by reconsidering older equity-market plumbing, the agency may be opening a broader conversation about what modern, automated, and potentially on-chain markets should look like.

Originally proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission at SEC Newsroom

Related Questions

QWhat two Regulation NMS rules did the SEC propose to rescind in its market structure proposal?

AThe SEC proposed rescinding Regulation NMS Rule 611, known as the Order Protection or Trade-Through Rule, and Rule 610(e), which restricts locked and crossed quotations.

QWhy are advocates of tokenized stocks interested in the SEC's proposal to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e)?

AAdvocates are interested because the current routing and quote rules (like the trade-through requirement in Rule 611) are difficult to reconcile with on-chain trading models such as Automated Market Makers (AMMs). A more flexible market structure could make it easier to design compliant blockchain-based systems for tokenized equities.

QWhat is the SEC's stated primary reason for proposing this change, and what financial benefit does it estimate?

AThe SEC's stated reason is to simplify traditional equity market structure, reduce trading complexity, and lower costs for participants. The agency estimates the change could save exchanges, broker-dealers, and other market participants between $54.2 million and $77 million annually in compliance and infrastructure costs.

QDoes the SEC's proposal directly address or legalize tokenized stocks? Why or why not?

ANo, the proposal does not directly address or legalize tokenized stocks. The SEC framed it as an equity market structure measure, not a crypto or blockchain rule. Tokenized stock platforms would still need to satisfy numerous other securities-law requirements, including exchange, broker-dealer, and custody rules.

QWhat are the next steps for this SEC proposal before any rule change becomes final?

AThe proposal will be open for a 60-day public comment period after publication in the Federal Register. The SEC must then review comments and could revise, narrow, or abandon parts of the proposal before adopting any final rule.

Related Reads

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

Has the crypto utopia collapsed? The industry is at an inflection point as the hype fades. The prevailing view is that crypto has become an outlet for excess liquidity, with many participants leaving as financial returns have fallen short of past-decade expectations. The 2021 boom has been revealed as an illusion, placing the industry in the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner's Hype Cycle. This forces a return to first principles: re-evaluating token value, securing DeFi protocols, and finding real-world applications. The core failure is a repetitive cycle of reflexive speculation, driven by the premature liquidity of tokens. The industry's incentives prioritized short-term gains over genuine innovation. While curiosity drives invention, recent DeFi hacks signal a need for engineering and iteration, including token models. The culture is shifting; the industry is no longer in its early stages. Positioned at a turning point on the technology adoption curve, crypto faces the immense challenge of rebuilding finance from scratch, a process of inevitable iteration and failure. Regarding crypto VC, claims of its death are overstated. The exceptional returns of 2016-2021 were an anomaly. The initial crypto-anarchist ethos has largely been co-opted by Wall Street and regulators. The utopian vision is over; the industry is being assimilated into the existing system, becoming a business. Current viable project categories include stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenized assets/RWA, perpetual contracts, and AI/agent integration. Crypto is converging with fintech, far from the envisioned DeFi revolution, and must find killer apps within regulatory boundaries. A reconciliation is possible: cryptocurrency may change value storage and transfer in subtle, imperceptible ways that integrate into existing systems, rather than through revolutionary fanfare. True creativity often emerges from adversity. There remains much to build for those driven by genuine curiosity.

marsbit11m ago

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

marsbit11m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

On July 28th, Changxin Technology's stock price on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board experienced minor fluctuations. The company had made a historic market debut the previous day, becoming the first A-share stock to record a single-day trading volume exceeding 1 trillion yuan. This led to significant paper gains for its strategic investors. Among them, Xiaomi's wholly-owned subsidiary was allocated 18.24 million shares with an initial investment of approximately 158 million yuan. Reports estimated a paper profit of 717 million yuan for Xiaomi founder Lei Jun based on his shareholding structure. However, a Xiaomi executive clarified that this was a corporate investment and should not be conflated with personal wealth. Other major beneficiaries included Alibaba and Nio. Alibaba, an early investor, held nearly a 5% stake through two entities, with an estimated paper gain exceeding 160 billion yuan. Nio, participating in the strategic placement, also saw substantial paper returns. Additionally, state-owned banks and insurance institutions that invested in Changxin recorded potential gains in the hundreds of billions. Conversely, companies like Country Garden reportedly missed out on nearly 50 billion yuan in potential gains after divesting their stakes before the IPO due to liquidity pressures. The article notes that these are paper profits based on the listing price, as the allocated shares are subject to lock-up periods, and final realized gains will depend on future stock performance. An employee from Changxin Technology commented that ordinary staff remain focused on their salaries and benefits rather than the market hype.

marsbit21m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

marsbit21m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

"The Token vs. Outcome Sale: Key Paradoxes in the AI Business Model By mid-2026, the AI industry shows rapid growth in revenue and token usage, yet the underlying business models differ significantly. This article analyzes four structural paradoxes defining the current landscape, all pointing to the commoditization of intelligence and the concentration of profits in few segments. **The Cost Paradox: Cheaper Tokens, Heavier Bills** Despite a >95% price drop for equivalent AI capability since 2023, total spending has skyrocketed due to the Jevons Paradox: lower prices expand usage into previously uneconomical tasks. Furthermore, the shift to autonomous agents operating 24/7 multiplies consumption. However, efficiency gains often remain unrealized due to unchanged organizational workflows (the Solow Paradox). The focus is shifting from optimizing token price to optimizing the task itself. **The Hierarchy Paradox: The App is King vs. The App is Dead** While conventional wisdom holds that value accrues at the application layer, the AI stack is inverted. Infrastructure (chips) captures ~70% of industry revenue and ~80% of gross profit, while application-layer margins are thin (0-30%). Fast-evolving base models threaten "thin" apps. Sustainable applications are those that embed intelligence into specific contexts, possessing private data, workflows, or delivery capabilities that become more valuable as the base model improves. **The Responsibility Paradox: Profit Follows Accountability** Growth rates alone don't guarantee profit. A key differentiator is a company's willingness and ability to take responsibility for specific outcomes. Selling by the token competes for IT budgets; selling by the outcome (e.g., a resolved support ticket) taps into larger human labor budgets. Low-responsibility, high-volume tasks (e.g., generic客服) face commoditization. High-stakes, regulated domains (e.g., law, healthcare) where vendors assume heavier liability for results command higher margins, as seen with companies like Harvey in legal tech. **The Open-Source Paradox: Open Wins Traffic, Closed Wins Revenue** Open-source models dominate in usage share and developer adoption, often being 5-20x cheaper. However, closed-source models still capture the majority of enterprise spending (~89%). Enterprises pay a premium for closed-source reliability, support, compliance, and accountability. The total cost of ownership (TCO) is converging as closed-source prices fall faster than open-source builds trust, leading to hybrid deployments. Profit is migrating from the model layer itself to upstream (compute) and downstream (orchestration, data, services)."

marsbit21m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

marsbit21m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片