Thoughts on the Liquidity of US Stock Tokenization: How to Reconstruct On-chain Trading Logic?

Since the end of June, the cryptocurrency industry has witnessed a wave of "U.S. stocks on-chain". Several platforms have launched tokenization versions of U.S. stocks and ETF trading services, and even introduced high-leverage contract products targeting these tokens.

By using the "real stock custody + token mapping" method, users only need a cryptocurrency wallet to trade stocks of well-known companies at any time, without the need to open an account with traditional brokers or meet capital thresholds. However, as related products expand, issues such as price deviations, premiums, and decoupling have arisen one after another, quickly bringing the underlying liquidity problems to the surface.

Although users can buy these tokens, it is almost impossible to efficiently short, hedge risks, and even more difficult to build complex trading strategies. The tokenization of US stocks essentially remains in the initial stage of "only being able to go long."

1. The Liquidity Dilemma of "US Stocks ≠ Trading Assets"

To understand the liquidity dilemma of the "U.S. stock tokenization" craze, it is first necessary to analyze the underlying design logic of the current "real stock custody + mapping issuance" model.

This model is currently mainly divided into two paths, with the core difference being whether there is an issuance compliance qualification:

1. Third-party compliant issuance + multi-platform access model: Achieve 1:1 anchoring of real stocks through collaboration with compliant institutions.
2. Licensed broker self-operated closed loop: Relying on its own broker license to complete the full process from stock purchase to on-chain token issuance.

The common point of the two paths is that they both view US stock tokens as pure spot holding assets, and the only thing users can do is to buy and hold them in anticipation of price increases, making them "sleeping assets". This results in a lack of scalable financial functionality, making it difficult to support an active on-chain trading ecosystem.

Since each Token must be backed by the actual custody of a stock, on-chain transactions are merely transfers of Token ownership and cannot affect the spot price of US stocks, which naturally leads to the "two-tier" problem between on-chain and off-chain. Without large-scale buying and selling funds, this can result in significant deviations in on-chain prices.

Secondly, the asset functionality of US stock assets is severely curtailed at present. Even though some platforms attempt to distribute dividends in the form of airdrops, most platforms have not opened up voting rights and re-staking channels, essentially making them merely "on-chain holding certificates" instead of true trading assets, lacking "margin attributes."

After users buy the relevant Tokens, they can neither be used for collateralized lending nor can they be traded as margin for other assets, making it even more difficult to access other DeFi protocols to further obtain Liquidity, resulting in an asset utilization rate that is nearly zero.

Objectively speaking, the current "U.S. stock tokenization" has only managed to move prices on-chain, still remaining in the initial stage of digital certificates, and has not yet become a true "financial asset usable for trading" to release liquidity. Therefore, it is difficult to attract a broader range of professional traders and high-frequency capital.

2. Subsidy Incentives, or "Arbitrage Channels" Patching

For the tokenization of US stocks, there is an urgent need to deepen its on-chain liquidity, provide more practical application scenarios and holding value for holders, and attract more professional funds to enter the market.

Currently, various mainstream solutions being discussed in the market, apart from the common "incentivizing liquidity" model in Web3, are trying to open up arbitrage channels between "on-chain and off-chain" by optimizing the efficiency of arbitrage paths to enhance liquidity depth.

1. Incentive Liquidity Pool

The "Incentive Pool Model" attempts to attract funds by issuing platform tokens to reward users who provide liquidity for trading pairs, using subsidies as an incentive. However, this model has a fatal flaw: the incentives rely on token inflation, which cannot form a sustainable trading ecosystem. Once the incentive intensity weakens, funds will quickly withdraw, leading to a cliff-like drop in liquidity.

More importantly, this model has never considered "allowing US stock tokens to generate liquidity on their own". The US stock tokens deposited by users only serve as part of the trading pair and cannot be used in other scenarios; the assets remain dormant.

2. Market Makers Lead Liquidity

The "market maker dominant model" attempts to bridge on-chain and off-chain arbitrage through compliant channels. Market makers can smooth out price differences when the on-chain Token price deviates from the spot price by either "redeeming Token → selling stocks" or "buying stocks → minting Token."

However, the implementation cost of this logic is extremely high. The complexities of compliance processes, cross-market settlements, and asset custody often result in the arbitrage window being consumed by time costs. In this model, US stock Tokens are always "arbitrage targets" rather than assets that can actively participate in trading.

3. High-speed off-chain matching + on-chain mapping

The "off-chain matching + on-chain mapping" model completes the core trading process through a centralized engine, only recording the results on-chain, theoretically able to connect with the depth of U.S. stock spot trading. However, this model has high technical and process thresholds, and the traditional U.S. stock trading hours also need to align with the 24/7 trading attributes of on-chain.

These three liquidity solutions each have their merits, but they all assume the injection of liquidity by external forces rather than allowing the US stock tokens to generate liquidity themselves. Relying solely on on-chain-off-chain arbitrage or incentive subsidies makes it difficult to fill the continuously growing liquidity gap.

3. Make US Stock Tokens "Living Assets"

In the traditional US stock market, the abundance of Liquidity is not rooted in the spot itself, but rather in the trading depth constructed by derivatives systems such as options and futures. These tools support the three core mechanisms of price discovery, risk management, and capital leverage.

The current tokenization market of US stocks is precisely lacking this layer of structure. Relevant tokens can be held but cannot be "used"; they cannot be collateralized for loans, nor can they be used as margin to trade other assets, let alone build cross-market strategies.

To break through the predicament of US stock tokens, it is essential to turn the accumulated tokens into "collateralizable, tradable, and combinable active assets." If users can short Bitcoin using a company's stock token and bet on Ethereum's price movement with another company's stock token, then these accumulated assets will no longer be merely "token shells," but rather become utilized margin assets, and liquidity will naturally grow from these real trading demands.

Some platforms have begun to explore this path. For example, recently a platform launched Tesla stock Token and Bitcoin index trading pairs on the Base chain, with the core mechanism being "coin-based perpetual options," allowing US stock tokens to truly become "margin assets available for trading."

This mechanism allows users to use US stock Tokens as collateral to participate in perpetual options trading of mainstream cryptocurrencies. In the future, it may support over 200 types of tokenized US stocks as collateral assets, enabling users holding small-cap US stock Tokens to use them as collateral to bet on the rise and fall of mainstream cryptocurrencies.

Compared to the contract restrictions of centralized exchanges, on-chain options can freely combine various asset pair strategies. When users can use various US stock tokens as collateral to participate in cryptocurrency perpetual options strategies, the trading demand will naturally attract market makers, high-frequency traders, and arbitrageurs, forming a positive cycle of "active trading → enhanced depth → more users."

The "coin-based perpetual option" mechanism is not only a trading structure but also naturally possesses the market-making ability to activate the value of US stock tokens. The project party can inject tokenized US stocks as initial seed assets into the liquidity pool, building a "main pool + insurance pool". Holders can also deposit their US stock tokens into the liquidity pool, assuming part of the seller's risk and earning the premiums paid by trading users, which is equivalent to establishing a new "coin-based appreciation path".

Under this mechanism, US stock tokens are no longer isolated assets, but have truly integrated into the on-chain trading ecosystem, being reused and connecting the complete path of "asset issuance → liquidity construction → derivative trading closed loop."

Conclusion

The competition in the new cycle has arrived at the stage of "whether it can be used"—how to create real trading demand? How to attract strategy building and capital reuse? How to truly activate US stock assets on-chain?

This no longer relies on more brokerages entering the market, but rather on the improvement of on-chain product structures. Only when users can freely go long or short, build risk portfolios, and combine cross-asset positions can "tokenization of U.S. stocks" possess complete financial vitality.

The essence of liquidity is not the accumulation of funds, but the matching of demand. When it is possible to freely achieve "hedging Bitcoin volatility with certain company stock options" on-chain, the liquidity dilemma of U.S. stock tokenization may finally be resolved.