SEC Promotes Tokenized Stocks, Is the Traditional Finance Industry Starting to Worry?

marsbitPubblicato 2026-05-22Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-05-22

Introduzione

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is preparing to formally release an "innovation exemption" framework this week. This framework would allow third parties to tokenize U.S. stocks like Apple and Tesla without approval from the listed companies. The move, rooted in a deregulatory vision proposed by pro-crypto commissioners earlier this year, could accelerate the migration of traditional stock markets to blockchain. This development poses a structural threat of "fragmentation" to traditional finance. Core concerns are liquidity fragmentation—where trading volume disperses across multiple blockchains and platforms, leading to price disparities and reduced market efficiency—and revenue fragmentation—where trading fees and intermediary income shift away from domestic exchanges to overseas or competing platforms. The report compares the traditional stock market to a monopolistic "supermarket." Tokenization enables countless "street stalls" to operate outside this system, threatening the exchange's dominance, diluting liquidity for large orders, and slicing into revenue streams. Evidence of this capital fragmentation is already emerging. On the same day the SEC signaled the framework, decentralized platform Hyperliquid saw its RWA (real-world asset) open interest hit a record $2.6 billion, driven by demand for 24/7 on-chain trading of traditional assets. Traditional institutions face a dilemma: either collaborate to build tokenization infrastructure proactively or...

Author: Tiger Research

Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is preparing to formally announce an "innovation exemption" framework this week, which will allow third parties to tokenize U.S. stocks like Apple and Tesla without approval from the listed companies. This move could accelerate the migration of traditional stock markets to blockchain, while also raising deep concerns among exchanges about liquidity fragmentation and revenue loss.

According to a Bloomberg report on May 18, this framework originates from the deregulation vision proposed by pro-crypto commissioners Paul Atkins and Hester Peirce in February. Coinbase and the Blockchain Association had previously submitted formal letters of support, strongly advocating for granting third parties the right to tokenize. However, the guidance issued by Peirce on May 22 is narrower in scope than market expectations, applying only to on-chain stock instruments that fully retain shareholder rights and explicitly excluding synthetic stock tokens that do not carry voting or dividend rights.

Two Core Threats: Liquidity Fragmentation and Revenue Fragmentation

The core impact of tokenized stocks lies in "fragmentation." While the crypto industry often discusses liquidity aggregation, the traditional finance world views it as a structural threat.

  • Liquidity Fragmentation: When the same stock is tokenized on different blockchains and decentralized platforms, the trading volume and order flow originally concentrated on the NYSE or Nasdaq will disperse across multiple venues. This will lead to price disparities between platforms, increased slippage for large orders, and reduced overall market efficiency.
  • Revenue Fragmentation: With the dispersion of trading venues, transaction fees and intermediary revenues that originally belonged to domestic exchanges will flow to overseas or competing platforms, directly impacting national financial competitiveness.

A Tiger Research report uses South Korea as an example: The SK Hynix 2x Leveraged ETF launched by Hong Kong asset manager CSOP has grown into the world's largest single-stock leveraged ETF, with assets exceeding 110 billion won (approximately $80 billion). If South Korea could have taken the lead in launching similar products through regulatory sandboxes, these management fees and financial revenues could have stayed within the country.

The End of Traditional Exchanges' "Supermarket" Monopoly

The report uses a vivid metaphor to describe this change: the traditional stock market is like a dominant supermarket where all buyers and sellers are concentrated, and the exchange monopolizes transactions and collects fees. Tokenized stocks are akin to allowing anyone to set up thousands of street stalls without permission, conducting trades directly outside the supermarket.

This dispersion will lead to buyer loss, thinner inventory at each stall, difficulty in executing large trades, and the slicing up of revenue sources. If domestic exchanges hesitate due to regulatory constraints, competing platforms in other jurisdictions will rush to seize global capital flows and intermediary revenues.

Capital Fragmentation Is Already Happening

On the same day the SEC signaled the framework (May 18), the open interest for RWAs (Real World Assets) on the decentralized platform Hyperliquid surpassed $2.6 billion, reaching a record high. Driven by the demand for 24/7 on-chain trading of traditional assets, RWA trading volume on perpetual DEXs is expected to surge further.

Traditional financial institutions and regulators face a dilemma: one option is to proactively build tokenization infrastructure through cooperation, like the NYSE; the other is to lobby regulators to block innovation to protect existing revenues. Regulators are also conflicted—they must control the pace of innovation while preventing domestic revenue from being siphoned off by overseas platforms.

Even if the framework is formally announced, potential conflicts are just beginning. Future focal points will include:

  • A second "clarity war" surrounding shareholder rights;
  • How to bring platforms like Hyperliquid, which have grown in regulatory gray areas, into the regulatory system. If deemed unlicensed exchanges, this could trigger a new wave of liquidity and uncertainty shocks.

In the era of digital assets, if financial institutions and jurisdictions do not act quickly, they will permanently lose their long-monopolized fee rights and financial leadership, and capital will continue to disperse in all directions.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the SEC's upcoming 'innovation exemption' framework expected to allow, according to the article?

AThe SEC's upcoming 'innovation exemption' framework is expected to allow third parties to tokenize stocks like Apple and Tesla on the blockchain without requiring approval from the companies themselves, provided the tokenized instruments fully retain shareholder rights such as voting and dividends.

QWhat are the two main 'fragmentation' threats that tokenized stocks pose to traditional finance, as outlined in the Tiger Research report?

AThe two main 'fragmentation' threats are liquidity fragmentation and revenue fragmentation. Liquidity fragmentation means trading volume spreads across multiple blockchain platforms, causing price discrepancies and higher slippage. Revenue fragmentation refers to the diversion of trading fees and intermediary income away from national exchanges to competing or foreign platforms.

QWhat example does the article use to illustrate the financial loss a country can suffer by not moving quickly with tokenized products?

AThe article uses the example of South Korea. A Hong Kong-based asset manager's leveraged ETF on SK Hynix has grown into the world's largest single-stock leveraged ETF. The report suggests that if South Korea had acted faster through a regulatory sandbox, the management fees and financial revenue from such a product could have remained within the country.

QWhat platform's RWA (Real World Asset) open interest hit a record high on the same day the SEC signaled its new framework?

AOn the same day (May 18), the decentralized platform Hyperliquid saw its RWA open interest surge to a record high, exceeding $2.6 billion.

QWhat are the two strategic options traditional financial institutions and regulators face in response to tokenization, as mentioned in the article?

AThe two strategic options are: 1) To proactively build tokenization infrastructure through partnerships, similar to what the NYSE is doing. 2) To lobby regulators to block innovation in order to protect existing revenue streams.

Letture associate

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

In a recent Seeking Alpha article, financial professor and analyst Damir Tokic argues that the US stock market may be poised for a significant crash in June 2026. The core thesis centers on a "mega-bubble" in equities, particularly within the technology sector, which has driven the S&P 500 to near-record valuations, with a Shiller P/E ratio exceeding 40—a level comparable to the 2000 dot-com bubble. Tokic identifies two primary catalysts for a potential collapse. First, he points to unsustainable market exuberance fueled by what he terms the "Trump Stimulus"—massive AI capital expenditure by tech giants, which he believes is politically driven and cannot last. Second, and more urgently, he highlights the escalating Iran war as a critical threat. The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a severe global energy supply crunch. Strategic petroleum reserves are projected to hit critically low operational levels by June, potentially causing oil prices to spike above $200 per barrel and triggering a severe, supply-driven inflationary shock. This scenario, Tokic warns, would force the Federal Reserve's hand. Despite currently maintaining a dovish bias, the Fed would likely be compelled to officially pivot to a hawkish stance at its June FOMC meeting to combat soaring inflation and bond yields. He contends that such a shift—or even a failure to act, which would destroy Fed credibility—could be the trigger that punctures the market bubble. The resulting downturn, he concludes, could rival the bear markets of 2000 and 2008, advising investors to prepare for a major correction.

marsbit12 min fa

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

marsbit12 min fa

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

**Title:** The AI PC Battle: Don't Bet on Sides, Bet on the Tollbooth **Summary:** The AI PC competition is moving beyond simple "x86 vs. Arm" narratives. The core investment thesis should focus on identifying which players can sustain margins, cash flow, and pricing power throughout the upgrade cycle, rather than backing a particular architecture. The opportunity is analyzed in three layers: 1. **The Advanced Foundry Tollbooth:** TSMC is positioned to collect "tolls" regardless of which chip designer wins, due to its dominant ~70% share in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, which is essential for high-end AI PC chips. 2. **Compute & Platform Spillover:** AMD represents an offensive in the x86 CPU+GPU space, while NVIDIA leverages its GPU and CUDA software stack dominance. Both benefit from the demand for increased local AI compute. 3. **Architecture Diffusion & Turnaround Plays:** ARM and Intel offer potential for significant upside (elasticity), but investments here require stricter discipline due to higher execution risks and competitive challenges. The industry is transitioning from concept to shipment validation. While short-term forecasts for AI PC adoption have been revised down slightly due to tariffs and procurement delays, the long-term trend towards AI becoming a standard PC feature remains intact. The key driver for upgrade cycles will be whether compelling enterprise applications (e.g., privacy-sensitive computing, low-latency inference) emerge beyond consumer-focused features like meeting summarization. Investment strategy should prioritize companies with platform-level advantages and recurring revenue streams. TSMC offers high certainty as the foundational tollbooth. AMD presents a strong offensive play within the established ecosystem. ARM and Intel are higher-risk, higher-potential-reward turnaround bets. The report cautions against chasing short-term hype and emphasizes a disciplined, long-term approach focused on buying ecosystem strength and cash-flow certainty after market enthusiasm subsides. **Key Risks:** Underwhelming AI PC applications slowing upgrade cycles; slow improvement in Windows on Arm compatibility; macro/tariff impacts on PC demand; potential advanced node supply-demand mismatches affecting TSMC; high overall AI sector valuations making stocks vulnerable to a risk-off shift in markets.

marsbit27 min fa

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

marsbit27 min fa

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

Marvell Technology's stock price surged from under $10 in 2016 to a record $290 in June 2026, fueled not by making GPUs, but by dominating AI infrastructure connectivity. This analysis argues the market misvalues MRVL as merely a smaller Broadcom in custom AI chips, overlooking its true, unique position. Marvell's core strength lies in enabling high-speed data flow for AI clusters through three interconnected businesses. First, it holds a commanding ~70% market share in high-speed optical DSPs (essential for data center light modules), a deep-moat business with accelerating growth. Second, its custom AI chip design business serves hyperscalers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google, with a significant revenue pipeline despite lower margins. Third, stable cash flows come from Ethernet switch chips and enterprise storage controllers. Together, they form a full-stack "AI data movement" platform. CEO Matt Murphy's transformative leadership since 2016, involving strategic divestments, key acquisitions (like Inphi for optical DSPs), and securing long-term agreements with major cloud providers, repositioned the company. A pivotal $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA in 2026 underscored Marvell's critical role in the AI ecosystem, particularly through collaborations like NVLink Fusion. While Marvell faces risks—including client concentration (losing the Amazon Trainium3 design), lower-margin business mix, competitive threats, insider selling, and complex supply chains—its fundamentals remain strong. The optical interconnect moat is widening with the acquisition of Celestial AI (photonics fabric), and financial metrics show accelerating revenue growth and operating leverage. With a PEG ratio suggesting undervaluation relative to its growth, the thesis is that the market undervalues Marvell's monopolistic position in AI "plumbing" while overemphasizing its competitive custom chip segment. The story transcends investing, symbolizing how in any complex system—from the internet to AI—the value of "connection" ultimately surpasses that of individual "nodes."

marsbit57 min fa

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

marsbit57 min fa

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

A discussion on Zhihu about "AI relay stations" shifted the niche developer topic of "cheap tokens" into broader user awareness. Users moved beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of these services to focus on practical concerns: Where do cheap tokens truly come from? Is the model being accessed the real one? Can relay stations see prompts, code, and API keys? For occasional users, are the risks worth it? The core debate centered less on price and more on trust. A primary worry is model authenticity—the risk of "model swapping," where users paying for a premium model might be routed to a cheaper one, creating an information asymmetry. Others argued that cost comparisons matter; while cheaper than official pay-as-you-go APIs, relay stations may not be the lowest-cost option versus subscriptions, domestic models, or free tiers, making user needs assessment crucial. Speculation about token sources ranged from legitimate bulk discounts to gray-area methods like account sharing or exploiting regional pricing. This opacity makes risk assessment difficult for users. Data security emerged as a critical concern, especially for enterprise use. When processing sensitive information like code, contracts, or client data, the inability to verify a relay station's data handling, retention, or access policies poses significant compliance and confidentiality risks. The evolving consensus suggests relay stations can be used cautiously for low-sensitivity, disposable tasks (e.g., summarizing public info, simple translation). However, they should not be the default for sensitive, professional, or production workflows involving proprietary data, Agents, or automated systems. Recommendations include avoiding large prepayments, not relying on a single service, using test prompts to monitor quality, anonymizing data where possible, and keeping official channels as backups. Ultimately, the discussion framed tokens not just as a billing unit but as a measure of real cost encompassing price, model integrity, data security, and service stability. The popularity of relay stations highlights user demand for affordable access, but the debate underscores a key trade-off: the savings from cheap tokens may come at the price of trust, transparency, and control over one's data and AI experience.

marsbit1 h fa

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片