2026-01-02 19:22:10

Nasdaq has submitted a new proposal to the SEC, aiming to integrate tokenized securities into the trading system. Does it sound outrageous? Actually, traditional finance has been quietly embracing on-chain assets— the real-world asset (RWA) market is now close to $300 billion, and analysts predict it could reach trillions of dollars by 2030. Stocks and bonds that once could only be bought and sold in offices are now being tokenized on the blockchain at an unprecedented scale.

On the surface, this is indeed an infrastructure upgrade at the institutional level. 24/7 trading, fragmenting assets into ownership shares, global liquidity at any time, and even using them as collateral in DeFi to unlock liquidity—all of these are tricks that can only be played on the chain. The role of blockchain here is quite clear: it’s an efficiency tool.

But wait, we need to think calmly. What was the initial drive behind cryptocurrency when it first emerged? It was to break, reshape, and fundamentally transform how value is measured and transferred. Yet now, seeing major exchanges rushing to bring US stocks, bonds, and real estate titles onto the chain, crypto has become an enhanced version of traditional finance—faster channels, cheaper costs, and nothing more. Is the dream of reconstructing the entire system becoming further away?

Of course, we cannot deny that technology makes trading more efficient. But the truly impressive aspect of blockchain might not be here. Its core potential lies in programmable trust and global collaboration—these can create ways of value creation and distribution that are impossible within traditional frameworks. For example, you could build a charitable system that operates without central management, driven entirely by code rules and community voting, where every contribution leaves a trace and every transaction is verifiable—completely transparent. That’s the ultimate form of blockchain.

Looking at it from another angle, some projects use blockchain to improve efficiency by bringing financial assets on-chain, while others use it to facilitate and verify social actions like global educational aid. The former is an upgrade of tools; the latter is an upgrade of imagination. Both paths are being pursued, but what we need to think clearly about is: which one do we really want?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TestnetScholar

· 01-05 15:16

I'm a bit speechless... Nasdaq's approach is just using crypto as a tool, where's the rebellious spirit we had in the beginning? --- 300 billion to 1 trillion? Sounds great, but are we upgrading finance or being enslaved by it? --- Basically, CeFi has found a new way to siphon off money, and the essence of the chain is being ruined. --- I just want to ask, why can't we have both efficient trading and decentralized ideals? Why choose one over the other? --- Regarding RWA, the technology is impressive but the direction is off, I've seen it coming a long time ago. --- Instead of bringing real estate bonds on-chain, it's better to think about how to use the chain to break monopolies, but if it doesn't make quick money, no one will do it. --- This article woke me up; I really need to reflect on what I'm actually chasing in this circle.

View OriginalReply0

FadCatcher

· 01-02 19:52

Honestly, Nasdaq's move is a bit boring—just taking traditional financial old tricks and moving them onto the chain. Where is the true Web3 spirit? It has long been swallowed up by those institutions.

View OriginalReply0

MissingSats

· 01-02 19:48

Honestly, this move by Nasdaq is treating crypto as a delivery tool, which is a shame. Wait, should we have started like this from the beginning? It feels like our ideals have been swallowed by reality.

View OriginalReply0

PanicSeller

· 01-02 19:47

Oh no, it's the same old story. Nasdaq's tokenization of securities is just going to be done and dusted. --- 300 billion to trillions, sounds great, but this isn't a revolution—it's just Wall Street giving itself an accelerator. --- Making money tools and transforming the world are not the same thing, right? Now they've become the former, which is a bit of a pity. --- So, do we want efficiency or freedom? I think we have to choose one. --- The on-chain public welfare system is truly amazing, but no one is really seriously working on it. --- Moving US stocks, bonds, and real estate onto the blockchain—this is just a dimensionality reduction attack by traditional finance. What about the soul of crypto? --- Speaking of which, if this path continues, isn't Web3 turning into Web2.5—an upgraded version of centralization? --- Hey wait, why do I feel like the major exchanges don't really want that ideal? They just want to make quick money.

View OriginalReply0

just_another_wallet

· 01-02 19:45

Honestly, I find Nasdaq's approach a bit off-putting... I originally thought blockchain could change the game, but now it seems to have become an accelerator for Wall Street? I believe that the real opportunity isn't just moving stocks onto the chain. The core should be things that traditional finance simply can't do. By the way, the $300 billion RWA data is quite shocking, but it's just putting new wine in old bottles... Ultimately, it still depends on who is truly using blockchain to transform systems, rather than just using it to make quick money.

View OriginalReply0