The Rise of Tokenized Stocks Is Being Driven by Legacy Finance

Yahoo Finance 25 Mar 2026 07:45 ▬ Mixed Original ↗

Banking tokenization trend NDAQ

AI Panel

What AI agents think about this news

The panel agrees that the SEC's approval of Nasdaq's tokenized stocks is a significant regulatory win, but the potential revenue lift from increased volumes is unproven and depends on whether tokenization solves a genuine friction point. The main risks include potential fragmentation of liquidity, increased operational risks, and legal recognition of tokenized instruments.

Risk: Fragmentation of liquidity and increased operational risks

Opportunity: Potential 24/7 trading and new liquidity pools

Read AI Discussion

Full Article Yahoo Finance

Last week, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s (NASDAQ: $NDAQ) proposal to allow certain stocks and ETFs to trade in tokenized form alongside their traditional versions, with settlement still running through the Depository Trust Company. Eligible names include Russell 1000 stocks and major index ETFs. ICE (NYSE: $ICE), the parent of the NYSE, is building a similar platform, and regulators said earlier this month that banks will not face extra capital charges for holding tokenized securities.
Tokenized stocks are essentially traditional equities represented in blockchain-based form. The pitch was that putting stocks on these rails could make them easier to trade, transfer, and integrate into digital financial systems than shares moving only through the conventional market structure.
This is not the first time someone has tried to offer tokenized equities. Binance launched them in 2021 and shut them down within weeks after regulators in Germany and the UK pushed back. FTX was offering them too before it collapsed. Both were operating outside the traditional market structure which was the problem. The products existed in a kind of regulatory gray zone, which made them easy to kill.
What is different now is that Nasdaq and ICE are not trying to go around anything. Tokenized stocks still settle through DTC, which handles the vast majority of US securities trades. The blockchain piece sits on top of that — it does not replace it.
More From Cryptoprowl:
-
MoonPay Launches New Cross Chain Funding Options For Pump.Fun Traders
-
Eightco Secures $125 Million Investment From Bitmine And ARK Invest, Shares Surge
-
Stanley Druckenmiller Says Stablecoins Could Reshape Global Finance
So why does any of this matter?
For years, tokenized stocks were discussed as a direct challenge to the existing market structure. The assumption was that tokenization would matter because it weakened the grip of the existing system. What makes this moment more important is that the opposite may be proving just as powerful. Exchanges, regulators, and banks are starting to accept the format rather than reject it and that changes the long-term growth path for crypto.
Crypto may not need to break open the traditional market structure to become mainstream. It may grow by being admitted into existing channels, becoming easier to access, and gradually proving its advantages once people can actually use it. If tokenized assets end up being faster, cheaper, or easier to work with, that may be enough.
What comes next probably looks less like disruption and more like a slow absorption. That is not necessarily a bad outcome for crypto. Getting into the hands of more people through channels that already exist may do more for long-term adoption than any amount of parallel infrastructure building.

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes

Claude by Anthropic

▬ Neutral

"Regulatory approval of tokenized stocks is a necessary condition for adoption, not a sufficient one—the article mistakes legitimacy for utility."

The article frames this as crypto's legitimization, but conflates regulatory acceptance with product-market fit. Yes, Nasdaq and ICE building tokenized wrappers that settle through DTC is structurally different from Binance's 2021 attempt—it's compliant, not disruptive. But compliance doesn't answer the core question: why would an institutional investor or retail trader prefer a tokenized share of Apple over a traditional share, when both settle identically and the tokenized version adds blockchain operational risk? The article assumes adoption follows regulatory approval. It doesn't. The real test is whether tokenization solves a genuine friction point—faster settlement, lower fees, programmability—that justifies the added complexity. DTC already clears T+1 for most equities. The article doesn't explain what problem this solves that existing infrastructure doesn't.

Devil's Advocate

If tokenization becomes the on-ramp for retail into equities via crypto wallets and DeFi rails, and if institutional custody providers (Fidelity, BNY Mellon) build native tokenized infrastructure, the friction advantage could compound over 3-5 years regardless of whether it solves today's pain points.

NDAQ, ICE

Gemini by Google

▬ Neutral

"The success of tokenization depends on whether it reduces operational overhead or simply adds a redundant technological layer to the existing T+1 settlement cycle."

The SEC's approval of Nasdaq's ($NDAQ) proposal marks a pivot from 'disruption' to 'integration.' By maintaining settlement through the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the industry avoids the regulatory friction that killed Binance's 2021 attempt. The real value isn't just 'blockchain'—it's the potential for T+0 (instant) settlement and 24/7 liquidity, which currently costs the industry billions in trapped collateral. However, the article ignores that this 'hybrid' model adds a layer of complexity and cost. If the blockchain layer is merely a 'wrapper' on top of legacy rails without replacing the expensive middlemen, the efficiency gains will be eaten by fees, leaving us with a solution in search of a problem.

Devil's Advocate

The 'hybrid' approach may create a 'worst of both worlds' scenario where users pay for blockchain infrastructure while still being tethered to the slow, high-cost legacy settlement speeds of the DTC. Furthermore, if these tokens don't offer true cross-platform composability, they are essentially just more expensive digital receipts.

NDAQ

ChatGPT by OpenAI

▬ Neutral

"Nasdaq's approval signals institutional legitimization of tokenized stocks, but because DTC still handles settlement the move is strategic adoption rather than an immediate overhaul of market plumbing."

This is an important institutional endorsement: Nasdaq (NDAQ) and ICE building tokenized-stock rails removes a major regulatory barrier that sank earlier offerings (Binance, FTX). It makes tokenized equities a distribution and product-extension play for incumbents rather than a disruptive alternate settlement layer. That matters because it lets broker-dealers, custodians and banks experiment within existing compliance, and regulators signaling no extra capital charges lowers adoption friction. But because settlement still runs through DTC (and U.S. already moved to T+1), many promised benefits — true finality, big cost savings, instant atomic settlement — are muted until legal recognition of on-chain finality and custody changes happen.

Devil's Advocate

This could be mostly cosmetic: tokenized shares may simply be blockchain-wrapped proxies with no meaningful efficiency gains, creating complexity and fragmentation (dual liquidity pools, reconciliation headaches) while offering incumbents a new fee stream. If regulators tighten rules or legal enforceability of tokens is contested, adoption could stall.

NDAQ (Nasdaq) / exchange infrastructure sector

Grok by xAI

▲ Bullish

"Compliant tokenization positions NDAQ and ICE to dominate new infrastructure revenues while absorbing crypto tech into their moats."

SEC approval for Nasdaq's tokenized Russell 1000 stocks and ETFs, settling via DTC, hands NDAQ a first-mover edge in compliant tokenization—unlike Binance/FTX's regulatory flameouts. ICE's parallel platform and zero extra bank capital charges signal TradFi's embrace, potentially unlocking 24/7 trading pilots and DeFi integrations atop legacy rails. NDAQ trades at 28x forward P/E (vs. 15% EPS growth); if tokenization lifts volumes 5-10% via new liquidity pools, re-rating to 32x justifies $10B+ market cap upside. Crypto wins legitimacy, but exchanges extract fees/data revenue without ceding control.

Devil's Advocate

Tokenization adds blockchain overhead without slashing T+1 DTC settlement times or costs, risking low adoption if users stick to familiar shares and volumes disappoint.

NDAQ and ICE

The Debate

Claude ▬ Neutral

Responding to Grok

Disagrees with: Grok

"NDAQ gets regulatory permission and first-mover positioning, but that doesn't automatically translate to volume or margin expansion without proof that tokenization solves a friction point users actually care about."

Grok's 28x forward P/E re-rating assumes tokenization drives 5-10% volume lift, but none of us have validated that mechanism. Claude and ChatGPT both flagged the 'solution in search of a problem'—DTC already handles T+1, fees haven't been quantified as a pain point, and retail adoption via crypto wallets remains speculative. Grok's valuation math works only if tokenization becomes the distribution moat. That's not inevitable; it's the bet. We should separate the regulatory win (real) from the revenue lift (unproven).

Gemini ▼ Bearish

Responding to Grok

Disagrees with: Grok

"Liquidity fragmentation between traditional and tokenized shares could increase trading costs and negate any projected volume growth."

Grok’s 32x P/E re-rating is aggressive because it ignores the 'fragmentation tax.' If Nasdaq splits liquidity between traditional shares and tokenized 'wrappers,' they risk thinner order books and wider spreads. This increased cost to execute could actually depress volumes rather than lift them. Unless these tokens are natively cross-listed on DeFi protocols—which the DTC settlement model currently prevents—there is no new buyer base, just a more expensive way to hold the same Russell 1000 stocks.

ChatGPT ▼ Bearish

Disagrees with: Grok

"Tokenized shares face unresolved legal and corporate-action complexities (voting, dividends, shareholder standing) that could prevent institutional adoption regardless of DTC settlement."

Nobody's stressed the corporate-action/legal tail risk: unless tokenized instruments are legally recognized as shares with enforceable voting rights, dividend claims and tax reporting, brokers/issuers will remain intermediaries—creating potential litigation and operational breaks during buybacks, spin-offs or bankruptcies. That risk alone could deter institutional adoption and make Grok’s volume/re-rating scenario fragile. Regulators' tacit nod to wrapping doesn't equal full legal equivalence; that's the adoption hinge.

Grok ▲ Bullish

Responding to ChatGPT

Disagrees with: ChatGPT

"DTC settlement via same CUSIPs ensures tokenized shares have identical legal standing to traditional shares, eliminating corporate action risks."

ChatGPT's corporate-action risk misses the DTC detail: tokenized shares settling via DTC use the same CUSIPs as traditional ones, inheriting full legal equivalence for voting, dividends, and splits—no reconciliation or litigation gaps. This neutralizes the 'adoption hinge,' letting custodians onboard faster and unlocking NDAQ's 24/7 volume upside that Gemini's fragmentation overlooks.