Original ｜Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
Author｜Golem (@web3_golem)
Today, the biggest obstacle to stock tokenization is no longer regulators, but listed companies.
According to an announcement released by OKXICE on November 2, the number of companies opposing OKXICE's launch of tokenized stocks has increased to 56, including popular US stocks such as Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX, and Nvidia. The dissenting companies account for 90% of the initial 62 companies proposed for inclusion. These 56 companies have a combined market capitalization of over $31 trillion, accounting for approximately 42% of the total market capitalization of the US stock market.
As of press time, 13 companies have not raised objections to OKXICE, including Apple, Strategy, Robinhood, Coinbase, Palantir, Circle, Securitize, BitGo, ServiceNow, GE Vernova, Boeing, Home Depot, and Super Micro Computer. Securitize and BitGo have previously stated that they do not intend to raise objections.
OKXICE is a joint venture between cryptocurrency exchange OKX and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), planning to launch stock tokens on X Layer. However, according to the US SEC's innovation exemption policy for stock tokenization, listed companies have the right to raise objections to third-party stock token platforms within 30 days.
OKXICE released its initial announcement on October 4. If OKXICE sent written notices to the 62 companies on that day, then by the deadline (November 3), only two companies have clearly expressed support, while 90% have explicitly opposed. According to US SEC regulations, OKXICE can ultimately only list 13 US stock tokens.
Although the 30-day objection period starts from the date the listed company receives the written notice, November 3 is not necessarily the deadline for all companies to raise objections. But for OKXICE, being able to list 13 stock tokens is already the best possible outcome at present.
What Are Listed Companies Worried About?
So why are these listed companies so resistant to third-party platforms trading their stocks? After all, on the surface, stock tokenization provides listed companies with a new trading channel, which theoretically can expand the investor base for stocks, extend trading hours, and even bring more liquidity to stocks. This is also the main argument promoted by the market for stock tokenization.
But for issuers, an increase in trading channels does not necessarily mean an improvement in the trading ecosystem.
From the perspective of third-party platforms like OKXICE, the more stock tokens that can be listed, the better. The richer the underlying assets, the more they can meet the investment needs of different users, and the easier it is to form economies of scale and attract more capital and traders. However, from the perspective of listed companies/issuers, launching stock token trading in a trading system that lacks direct control and is relatively independent from traditional securities markets carries risks far greater than incentives.
Based on the objections raised by listed companies so far, the core concerns are concentrated in three aspects: price and liquidity fragmentation, decreased visibility of trading behavior, and the possibility that third-party trading outcomes may in turn damage the issuer's market reputation.
Price and Liquidity Fragmentation
In traditional stock markets, trading in a stock is mainly concentrated on its listing exchange and related securities markets, and investors can observe price, volume, and order book changes through a relatively unified market data system. But if third-party platforms also begin issuing and trading corresponding stock tokens, the same company could have multiple trading prices and volume data simultaneously.
Even if the price of stock tokens is anchored to the price of the underlying stock, it does not mean that quotes on both sides will always remain consistent. When differences arise in trading hours, bid-ask depth, and arbitrage efficiency across different markets, price deviations may occur between the token and the underlying stock.
At the same time, for the US stock market, which has the greatest "capital dominance" globally, most listed companies and issuers are inherently skeptical of the view that stock tokens can attract more investors. They tend to believe that stock liquidity will not automatically increase simply because an on-chain trading channel is added, and there may even be adverse effects.
If trading demand originally concentrated in traditional securities markets is diverted to multiple platforms, it could lead to a decline in order book depth and wider bid-ask spreads in each market. For listed companies/issuers, this liquidity fragmentation may ultimately weaken price discovery efficiency.
Stephen Wink, Global Co-Chair of Latham's Fintech Industry Group, has pointed out that if trading volume in such stock tokens is low, a major concern for listed companies is price dislocation, which could put pressure on the underlying stock price and send wrong signals to the broader market.
Decreased Visibility of Trading Behavior
Second, listed companies are concerned that their real-time understanding of stock trading behavior will be affected.
Traditional securities markets have relatively mature market data disclosure and trade reporting systems. Listed companies, investors, and regulators can observe stock transaction prices and volumes through existing channels. But when stock tokens trade independently on third-party platforms, this data may not be fully incorporated into the consolidated market data system of traditional markets.
However, stock token trading on third-party platforms cannot be directly incorporated into the securities market data system that issuers originally rely on. If liquidity does indeed become dispersed to these platforms in the future, listed companies and issuers may be unable to accurately reflect the overall trading situation of their securities across different trading venues within the same data set, including grasping trading scale, participant structure, and specific behavior.
Nasdaq, as an issuer, has publicly stated its withdrawal from the TSV tokenization operating framework, believing that the framework would impair issuers' ability to fully, accurately, and timely understand the prices and trading behavior of their own securities.
Increased Reputational Risk
Under the current innovation exemption policy, listed companies only have the right to object after receiving written notice from a third-party platform. If they do not raise objections within 30 days, it means they tacitly agree to the third-party platform listing stock tokens. This is different from the past when crypto platforms listed US stock trading through SPV structures or directly listed US stock perpetual contracts. If problems arise with US stock tokens/contracts, listed companies could distance themselves by claiming ignorance or non-compliance, but if problems arise with stocks on TSV, listed companies, as tacit approvers, are highly likely to bear part of the responsibility.
For example, if a stock token experiences a price significantly deviating from the underlying stock, or even abnormal fluctuations, due to insufficient liquidity, limited market-making depth, or the platform's own technical and operational issues, ordinary investors may not carefully distinguish the legal relationship and trading mechanism between the stock and the stock token, but may directly associate such price performance with the listed company itself.
For listed companies with large market capitalization and a broad investor base, they are clearly unwilling to bear additional reputational risk just to add a trading channel.
The Essence Is Still a Conflict of Interest
But then again, all the above problems can be solved one by one, provided that listed companies and issuers are willing to cooperate with TSV. Based on the current situation, they have no intention of cooperating, and the fundamental reason is the lack of incentives.
For listed companies and issuers, agreeing to let TSV platforms list stock tokens, while bearing many risks, offers only the incentive of a new trading channel (with uncertain effectiveness), while benefits such as control rights and revenue sharing (third parties may capture liquidity/fees) are all monopolized by TSV.
Therefore, rather than supporting TSV, listed companies would be better off advancing or supporting an issuer-led path to stock tokenization themselves. The objection right under the US SEC's innovation exemption policy only applies to tokens created by non-affiliated third parties; tokens created by the issuer itself or its agents do not trigger the 30-day objection window.
Nasdaq is a typical example. Although it has withdrawn from the TSV tokenization operating framework, it is vigorously promoting Nasdaq Equity Token. Through cooperation with Kraken's parent company Payward and others, Nasdaq has achieved tokenization within the existing exchange framework and ensured the same CUSIP, same order book, and settlement through a DTC pilot with traditional shares, allowing issuers to retain control over ownership, investor identity, and proxy processes. Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman stated in the Q3 earnings report that the Nasdaq Equity Token plan is expected to launch in the first half of 2027.
Therefore, in the stock tokenization arena, the traditional market forces composed of listed companies and issuers have actually formed competition with the emerging market forces composed of crypto companies. Under the US SEC's innovation exemption policy, listed companies and issuers will become both "players and referees." As long as listed companies actively exercise their right to object to third-party tokenization, they can protect control and interests while hindering the operation of third-party stock token trading platforms.
This confrontation is not limited to the underlying stock space. In derivatives, Wall Street and crypto companies are also engaged in fierce competition. On November 3, the US CFTC approved the listing and trading of US stock perpetual contracts on regulated US exchanges. As soon as the policy landed, the traditional Wall Street financial camp, led by Citadel Securities and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court. The fundamental reason is concern that perpetual contracts will impact the traditional options market. (Related reading:US Historically Approves Stock Perpetual Contracts, Wall Street Giants Are Anxious)
When regulation is no longer the biggest obstacle, the battle for dominance in stock tokenization and the traditional financial revolution may have only just begun.
