The Inevitable Rise of Equity-like Tokens

marsbitPubblicato 2026-01-21Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-21

Introduzione

The article "The Inevitable Rise of Equity-Like Tokens" discusses the long-standing conflict between equity holders and token holders in crypto projects, using Uniswap's delayed fee switch implementation as a key example. It argues that neither extreme—fully eliminating equity for on-chain ownership nor abandoning tokens entirely—is optimal. Equity provides legal rights, governance control, and access to deeper capital markets, while tokens offer transparency, instant settlement, and community alignment. The piece highlights that tokenization of traditional equities is accelerating, with initiatives like the DTC pilot program and Nasdaq’s proposed tokenized securities trading. The author concludes that 2026 will be a year of innovation in equity-like tokens, merging legal protections with digital ownership, ultimately moving beyond the equity-vs-token debate toward a unified model of transparent, legally-backed digital ownership.

Author: Matty

Compiled by: Jiahuan, ChainCatcher

In November 2025, more than 5 years after the $UNI airdrop, Uniswap finally activated the fee switch.

This process involved years of delays and repeated governance battles, even reaching an extremely awkward moment in 2024 when a 'stakeholder' (widely believed to be an equity investor) blocked a proposal that was supposed to benefit token holders. Despite this, the UNIfication proposal ultimately passed with over 62 million votes.

The fact that the largest DEX in crypto took this long to figure out how to reward its token holders is telling of the current state of the relationship between equity and tokens. Although UNI token holders theoretically "own" the protocol, they could only watch from the sidelines as equity investors captured all the value from front-end fees.

While Uniswap is a prime example of the equity-token divide, this issue has worsened over years and affects almost every protocol that consistently generates revenue. Equity holders and token holders often compete for the same value pool, while operating under fundamentally different legal, governance, and economic frameworks.

The proposed solutions within the industry vary widely: from completely eliminating equity and moving all ownership on-chain, to going to the other extreme—abandoning tokens altogether. Both approaches have their proponents, but also significant flaws.

Extreme Path One: Full De-equitization

Completely eliminating equity and moving all ownership concepts on-chain is undoubtedly a theoretical solution. In this vision, smart contracts replace shareholder agreements, on-chain balances replace cap tables, and governance tokens replace board votes.

Instant settlement. Transparent ownership. What's not to like?

One major problem is: Unless the enterprise's assets, operations, and customers are entirely on-chain, the off-chain court system will always be the ultimate arbiter for dispute resolution. You can try to have all your off-chain contracts and agreements reference on-chain logic, but this still doesn't change the fact that off-chain courts are the arbiters, and not everything can be moved on-chain within your control.

For example, I could own a tokenized real estate NFT issued by a smart contract that states I own the corresponding property, but if the off-chain deed for that land says otherwise, good luck presenting your NFT when the sheriff comes to serve the eviction notice. (Again, you can take steps to try to ensure the off-chain deed matches the on-chain state, but this doesn't negate the fact that off-chain enforcement takes precedence).

The "no equity, pure token" approach is only feasible for a small subset of projects:

Fully on-chain networks and protocols, such as Bitcoin, some public blockchains, and fully autonomous DeFi. These projects have no company, no employees, no servers, and no external dependencies. After all, this was the original beauty of Bitcoin! An uncensorable system and unconfiscatable asset.

But for the vast majority of projects (and the vast majority of potential on-chain activity), this is not feasible. Web2 and Web2.5 companies have off-chain assets, customers, payments, and operations.

Extreme Path Two: Full De-tokenization

At the other end of the spectrum, some projects (actually, the vast majority of companies) decide to forgo tokens entirely. They raise equity, build products, and avoid all the headaches tokens can bring—while also sacrificing all the benefits.

  • Benefits: No tokens mean no SEC knocking on your door. No worrying about whether governance tokens are securities. No need to design tokenomics, worry about emissions, or explain buyback mechanisms.

  • Costs: Giving up instant settlement, transparent ownership records, cost efficiency gains, and the ability to align incentives for a global community.

Traditional equity transfer is expensive, settles slowly, and is inaccessible to most potential investors. Gaining exposure to equity in private startups remains expensive, inefficient, and opaque. Even in 2026, the processes required to trade public stocks seem archaic compared to DeFi.

Tokens, despite their flaws, have the potential to solve these problems. They enable community ownership and user-owned products. Abandoning this entirely is a step backward.

To find the optimal balance between these two extremes, we need to understand what equity provides that tokens cannot.

What Equity and Tokens Each Provide

1. Legal Rights and Recourse

When you own equity, you have legal standing. You can sue, enforce rights. If directors breach fiduciary duties or fraud occurs, you have an established legal framework to recover losses.

Token holders (with very few exceptions) have little to no legally recognized rights or protections. They often must simply hope the market saves their investment.

While theoretically a company's entire budget could be placed on-chain, having founders subject every decision to a shareholder vote, without legal rights, introduces massive operational inefficiencies and defeats the purpose of the investment—trusting the team's vision and capabilities.

2. Formal Governance Control

Equity shareholders elect the board, approve major transactions, and have codified rights. In contrast, governance tokens often provide an illusion of control.

As Vitalik has noted, token governance has serious flaws: low turnout (<10%), whale manipulation, lack of expertise. More often, on-chain governance devolves into "decentralized theater," where teams can often ignore votes if they dislike the outcome, as execution still requires manual action.

3. Legal Clarity for Value Accrual

In M&A activity, equity holders have clear legal rights to proceeds. As recent cases involving Tensor and Axelar have shown, token holders are often left out in the cold, even when the related project is acquired.

Because of this strong legal right to profit-sharing, stocks trade more reliably on multiples of expected future profits. Token valuations are often purely speculative, with no fundamental backing.

Even if a project generates revenue, most do not reliably route it to token holders due to regulatory risk and fiduciary duty conflicts. While off-chain agreements can be constructed to simulate this right, it is far less reliable than the legal foundation of equity.

4. Broader and Deeper Investor Pool

Simply put, the investor pool and total buying power of equity markets are vastly larger than token markets.

  • The US stock market alone is worth over 20 times the entire crypto industry.

  • Global equity markets are worth over 46 times the crypto industry.

Projects that choose tokens over equity effectively access only 2%-5% of the potential buying power they could reach.

2026: The Year of the Equity-like Token

One thing is certain: from tokenized equity to new forms of on-chain governance, 2026 will be a year of innovation and experimentation for equity-like tokens.

The DTC Pilot Program (launching in the second half of 2026) will be the first US initiative allowing participants to hold tokenized security entitlements on a blockchain. This represents the backbone of US capital markets infrastructure moving on-chain:

  • Nasdaq has proposed trading tokenized securities.

  • Securitize offers real public stocks with full on-chain legal ownership.

  • Centrifuge and others are tokenizing equity through SEC-registered transfer agents.

The convergence of traditional financial infrastructure with blockchain rails is no longer a pipe dream—it's happening.

For crypto-native projects, Uniswap's five-year journey to the fee switch is a cautionary tale. The equity-token split won't resolve itself automatically. It requires intentional design, clear agreements, and structures to resolve conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, this divergence stems from regulatory uncertainty and a lack of legal frameworks. Whether through the SEC's "crypto projects" or the Clarity Act, the US is expected to get long-awaited regulatory certainty as early as January this year.

By the end of this year, we will no longer be discussing equity vs. tokens. We will be discussing ownership—transparent, transferable, legally protected, and natively digital ownership.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main conflict discussed in the article regarding Uniswap and similar protocols?

AThe main conflict is between equity holders (like venture capital investors) and token holders, who are often competing for the same value pool from protocol revenues, but operate under vastly different legal, governance, and economic frameworks.

QWhat are the two extreme paths proposed to resolve the equity vs. token conflict, and what are their major drawbacks?

AThe two extremes are: 1) Fully eliminating equity and moving all ownership on-chain, which is only feasible for fully on-chain networks and fails when off-chain assets/courts are involved. 2) Fully eliminating tokens, which avoids regulatory headaches but sacrifices the benefits of instant settlement, transparent ownership, and global community coordination.

QAccording to the article, what key advantages does traditional equity have over governance tokens?

AEquity provides: 1) Legal rights and recourse (ability to sue, enforce rights). 2) Formal governance control (election of board, approval of major transactions). 3) Legal clarity for value accumulation (clear rights in M&A). 4) Access to a much larger and deeper pool of investors and capital.

QWhat significant infrastructure development is mentioned for 2026 regarding tokenized securities in the US?

AThe DTC Pilot Program, launching in late 2026, will for the first time allow participants in the US to hold tokenized security entitlements on a blockchain. This is part of a broader trend of traditional finance infrastructure (like Nasdaq) moving on-chain.

QWhat does the author predict will be the focus by the end of the year, moving beyond the 'equity vs. token' debate?

AThe author predicts the focus will shift to discussing 'ownership' itself—transparent, transferable, legally protected, and natively digital ownership, thanks to expected regulatory clarity and technological innovation.

Letture associate

While Everyone Says NFTs Are 'Dead', the Art World is Quietly Completing an 'On-Chain Renaissance'

While many declare NFTs "dead" and dismiss them as overhyped JPEGs, a significant institutional shift is quietly underway within the art world, signaling a "on-chain renaissance." Traditional art, a ~$60B market, is stagnant, aging, and highly concentrated, facing a massive $80 trillion generational wealth transfer to digital-native heirs. Contrary to the narrative, leading institutions have been building infrastructure for digital and on-chain art. Major museums like MoMA, the Centre Pompidou, LACMA, and the Guggenheim have acquired seminal NFT works into their permanent collections. Top galleries like Pace, Gagosian, and Hauser & Wirth have launched NFT platforms or accepted crypto, with Pace giving a solo show to generative artist Tyler Hobbs. Auction houses Sotheby's and Christie's operate dedicated on-chain sales platforms. This follows a historical pattern where every major art movement—from Impressionism to Pop Art—was initially mocked before institutional acceptance. NFT art, only 7-12 years old, is progressing faster. Auction data shows resilience, with works by Beeple ($69.3M), Pak (~$91M), and Dmitri Cherniak ($6.2M in a bear market) achieving high prices. A new cohort of collectors (e.g., FlamingoDAO, PleasrDAO) and "Medici" figures like Cozomo de' Medici are accumulating foundational works. The core argument is that NFTs represent not a speculative asset class but a new ownership system for digital culture, solving provenance issues through immutable, timestamped blockchain records. The medium has survived the speculative crash and is being institutionalized. The bet isn't on short-term price rallies but on the long-term cultural significance of on-chain art as the defining medium for the next generation of collectors.

marsbit9 min fa

While Everyone Says NFTs Are 'Dead', the Art World is Quietly Completing an 'On-Chain Renaissance'

marsbit9 min fa

Jensen Huang's Message to Graduates: AI Won't Replace You, But Those Who Excel at Using AI Will

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, addressing 2026 graduates at Carnegie Mellon University, emphasized that AI will not replace people, but those who leverage AI effectively will have an advantage. He delivered this message during a commencement speech where he also received an honorary doctorate, his seventh. Huang reflected on his personal journey as an immigrant, starting from humble beginnings as a dishwasher to co-founding NVIDIA. He shared early struggles, including a near-bankruptcy moment saved by honesty with Sega, highlighting resilience and learning from failure. He positioned the current era as the dawn of the AI revolution, a shift as significant as past computing waves. Huang explained that AI is redefining computing from human-written software to machine learning, creating a new industry focused on manufacturing intelligence. While acknowledging fears about job displacement, he argued that AI amplifies human capabilities rather than replaces human purpose. Tasks may be automated, but the core meaning of professions remains. Huang urged graduates to embrace this transformative time with responsibility and optimism. He stated that AI should democratize technology, bridging gaps and enabling broader participation in creation and problem-solving. His final advice was to actively engage with the opportunity: "So run, don’t walk," and to put their hearts into their work.

marsbit16 min fa

Jensen Huang's Message to Graduates: AI Won't Replace You, But Those Who Excel at Using AI Will

marsbit16 min fa

Three Scenarios for BTC's Future Direction and a Duel Between Two Strong Forces | Special Invited Analysis

**Title: Three Scenarios for BTC's Future Trajectory and a Key Duel | Invited Analysis** The market remains at a critical juncture. Over the past week, Bitcoin (BTC) consolidated broadly between $79,500 and $80,600, validating previous technical analysis. The current focus is on whether this marks the start of a new uptrend or a pause within a larger correction. **BTC Multi-Cycle Analysis & Three Possible Scenarios** BTC's daily chart structure, following its peak at $126,200 in October 2025, presents three primary technical scenarios based on Elliott Wave theory: 1. **Bullish Scenario (End of Correction):** The corrective A-B-C wave from $126,200 ended at the $60,000 low in February 2026. The current price action is the start of a major Wave I uptrend. A subsequent Wave II pullback would not break below $60,000. 2. **Bearish Scenario 1 (Complex Correction):** The correction is unfolding as an A-B-C-D-E pattern. The current move from $60,000 is a D-wave rally. After its completion, a final E-wave decline could potentially breach the $60,000 level. 3. **Bearish Scenario 2 (Larger Correction):** The entire move down from $126,200 to $60,000 was a large A-wave. The current rally is a B-wave correction within a larger A-B-C structure, to be followed by a C-wave decline below $60,000. *Analysis suggests Scenario 2 is less probable due to time disproportions between waves. The battle is effectively between the Bullish Scenario (1) and Bearish Scenario (3).* **Key BTC Levels & Weekly Strategy** On the 4-hour chart, BTC trades above a crucial consolidation zone ("Central Pivot C"). * **Key Resistance:** $83,500-$84,500; $89,000-$90,500. * **Key Support:** $78,500-$79,500 (pivot upper bound); $73,500-$75,000; $69,500-$70,500. **Weekly Outlook:** The market direction hinges on BTC's ability to hold above or break below the $78,500-$79,500 support zone. * **Mid-term Strategy:** Neutral/Wait-and-see stance due to unclear direction. * **Short-term Tactics:** Two contingency plans using 30% max capital: * **Plan A (Bullish):** Look for long entries if price holds above $78,500-$79,500 with confirming signals. Initial stop-loss below $78,500. * **Plan B (Bearish):** Consider short positions if price breaks below $73,500-$75,000 with confirming signals. Initial stop-loss above $76,500. **HYPE Analysis & Strategy** HYPE's daily chart shows a seven-segment structure from its January low of $20.46, forming a "rising pivot" zone. * **Key Level to Watch:** $45.76 (previous high). A break above would confirm the bullish structure remains intact. * **Short-term Strategy:** Focus on pivot zone boundaries ($38.41 upper, $34.44 lower). * **Long:** Consider on support near $38.41 with bullish confirmation signals. * **Short:** Consider on a break below $34.44 with bearish confirmation signals. * Position size must be below 30% with strict stop-loss discipline. **Risk Management Reminder:** Always set an initial stop-loss upon entry. Move stop-loss to breakeven at +1% profit, then trail it upwards to lock in profits dynamically. All views are based on technical analysis for informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. The market is inherently risky.

Odaily星球日报25 min fa

Three Scenarios for BTC's Future Direction and a Duel Between Two Strong Forces | Special Invited Analysis

Odaily星球日报25 min fa

Sequoia Interview with Hassabis: Information is the Essence of the Universe, AI Will Open Up Entirely New Scientific Branches

Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind and Nobel laureate, discusses the path to AGI and its profound implications in a Sequoia Capital interview. He outlines his lifelong dedication to AI, tracing his journey from game development (e.g., *Theme Park*)—a perfect AI testing ground—to neuroscience and finally founding DeepMind in 2009. He emphasizes the critical lesson of being "5 years, not 50 years, ahead of time" for successful entrepreneurship. Hassabis reiterates DeepMind's two-step mission: first, solve intelligence by building AGI; second, use AGI to tackle other complex problems. He highlights the transformative potential of "AI for Science," particularly in biology where tools like AlphaFold have revolutionized protein folding. He envisions AI-powered simulations drastically shortening drug discovery from years to weeks and enabling personalized medicine. Furthermore, he predicts AI will spawn new scientific disciplines, such as an engineering science for understanding complex AI systems (mechanistic interpretability) and novel fields enabled by high-fidelity simulators for complex systems like economics. He posits a fundamental worldview where information, not just matter or energy, is the essence of the universe, making AI's information-processing core uniquely suited to understanding reality. He defends classical Turing machines as potentially sufficient for modeling complex phenomena, including quantum systems, as demonstrated by AlphaFold. On consciousness, Hassabis suggests first building AGI as a powerful tool, then using it to explore deep philosophical questions. He believes components like self-awareness and temporal continuity are necessary for consciousness but that defining it fully remains an open challenge. He predicts AGI could arrive around 2030 and, once achieved, would be used to probe the deepest questions of science and reality, much as envisioned in David Deutsch's *The Fabric of Reality*.

链捕手43 min fa

Sequoia Interview with Hassabis: Information is the Essence of the Universe, AI Will Open Up Entirely New Scientific Branches

链捕手43 min fa

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy China Chips, Avoid Traditional Tracks

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy Chinese Chips; Avoid Traditional Segments. The core theme is the shift in AI compute supply from NVIDIA dominance to a three-track system of GPU + ASIC + China-local chips. The key opportunity is capturing share in this expansion, while non-AI semiconductors face marginalization due to resource reallocation to AI. Key investment conclusions, in order of priority: 1. **Advanced Packaging (CoWoS/SoIC) - Highest Conviction**: TSMC is the primary beneficiary of explosive demand, driven by massive cloud capex. Its pricing power and AI revenue share are rising significantly. 2. **Test Equipment - Undervalued & High-Growth Certainty**: Chip complexity is causing test times to double generationally, structurally driving handler/socket/probe card demand. Companies like Hon Hai Precision (Foxconn), WinWay, and MPI offer compelling value. 3. **China AI Chips (GPU/ASIC) - Long-Term Irreversible Trend**: Export controls are accelerating domestic substitution. Companies like Cambricon, with firm customer orders and SMIC's 7nm capacity support, are positioned to benefit from lower TCO (30-60% vs NVIDIA) and growing local cloud demand. 4. **Avoid Non-AI Semiconductors (Consumer/Auto/Industrial)**: These segments face a weak, structurally hindered recovery due to AI's resource "crowding-out" effect on capacity and supply chains. 5. **Memory - Severe Internal Divergence**: Strongly favor HBM (Hynix primary beneficiary) and NOR Flash (Macronix). Be cautious on interpreting price rises in DDR4/NAND as true demand recovery. The report emphasizes a 2026-2027 time window, stating the AI capital expenditure cycle is far from over. Key macro variables include persistent export controls and AI's systemic "crowding-out" effect on traditional semiconductor supply chains.

marsbit1 h fa

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy China Chips, Avoid Traditional Tracks

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片