How to Define "Real U.S. Stocks": Differences Between On-Chain Tokens, Perpetual Contracts, and Direct Broker Connections

By 2026, using stablecoins to buy US stocks has become a mainstream trend. However, behind the phrase "buying US stocks with USDT," although various products claim to provide users with exposure to the US stock market, they are actually selling fundamentally different assets. Some products convert US stock economic exposure into on-chain tokens; others launch perpetual contracts tracking US stock prices; and some provide services for buying and selling actual US stocks through licensed brokers. The risk-return profiles, rights structures, and underlying logic of these three types are completely distinct.

I. Overview of US Stock Trading Platforms

Current mainstream solutions for "buying US stocks with USDT" on the market can be clearly categorized into three types: Tokenized Stocks, Stock Futures, and the Brokerage Direct Model.

1. Tokenized Stocks

Tokenized Stocks are typically held by the issuer or its SPV/custodial arrangement. Users hold the economic rights represented by on-chain tokens, not direct shareholder status in a traditional securities account. The most representative issuer, Ondo Finance, has a TVL exceeding $1 billion and supports over 200 major stocks and ETFs; the overall market size has reached tens of billions of dollars.

2. Stock Futures

Stock contracts are the most efficient trading tools but have the least connection to "holding US stocks"—what users buy is a price contract with no legal link to stock ownership.

In 2026, several major trading platforms have launched stock-related perpetuals/CFD products, with significant variations in the number of underlying assets, leverage multiples, and available regions (approximately 5x-25x). On-chain platforms represented by Hyperliquid HIP-3/Trade.xyz are also expanding the traditional asset perpetual contract market, whose core value is allowing global traders to use stablecoins to express bullish or bearish views on traditional asset prices.

3. Brokerage Direct Model

The operational logic of the brokerage direct model is similar to traditional brokerages: users execute stock or ETF trades through a Broker-Dealer, with assets held via the U.S. clearing and custody system. This is the only path among the three models that actually results in purchasing the stock itself. However, it's important to note that there are significant differences between platforms operating under this model.

Source: Public Information Compilation

II. Comparison of Differences in US Stock Trading Products

The differences between the three models are not just in the trading experience but also in three core dimensions: legal rights, holding cost structure, and regulatory protection.

Source: Public Information Compilation

(1) Tokenized Stocks

The essence of Tokenized Stocks is the "on-chain shadow" of stocks—convenient and composable, but with incomplete rights; the shareholder identity remains with the issuer.

On-chain composability is the true differentiated advantage of this model: tokens can serve as collateral in DeFi lending protocols to earn additional yield, can be traded 24/7 on-chain, and can be purchased in fractional amounts—things traditional securities accounts cannot do. The limitations are equally clear: shareholder identity rests with the issuer, not the user; most platforms do not credit dividends directly as cash; and voting rights are advisory in nature, lacking legal enforceability. While there is no Funding Fee, subscription/redemption spreads, on-chain gas fees, and market-making spreads all contribute to holding costs.

(2) Stock Futures / Equity Perps

Stock Futures are a "price betting tool" for stocks—efficient, flexible, 24/7, but funding rates erode holding costs over the long term, and they are unrelated to actually holding the stock.

Stock Futures are the path most familiar to crypto traders—margin, stop-loss/take-profit, going long or short—the operational logic is identical to trading BTC perpetuals, just with a different underlying asset, available 24/7. The core cost is that funding rates can spike significantly during directional markets, with annualized costs reaching double digits or even exceeding 100%, acting as a slow bleed for "buy-and-hold" strategies; once the contract is closed, there are no shareholder rights whatsoever, leaving only a USDT P&L.

(3) Brokerage Direct Model

The brokerage direct model is the path closest to actually "buying the stock"—offering the most complete rights and the cleanest long-term holding cost structure, at the cost of forgoing on-chain composability and 24/7 trading.

The brokerage direct model offers the most complete rights: real stock, direct cash dividends, formal voting rights (where applicable), and coverage of thousands of assets. The main limitations are trading hours tied to the US stock market open and assets not being on-chain, preventing access to the DeFi ecosystem. It's important to note that differences in brokerage architecture across platforms directly affect the transmission path of user rights, making it worthwhile to understand the specific compliance structure before choosing a platform.

III. How to Define "Actually Buying US Stocks"

The characteristics and target user groups of these three paths have certain differences. However, for users looking to conveniently use stablecoins for long-term US stock allocation, the advantages of the brokerage direct model are very direct—each of its core differentiators precisely addresses the most prominent shortcomings of the first two models, including:

Advantage 1: No Funding Fee, Cleanest Long-Term Holding Cost Structure

Holding real US stock spots does not involve the concept of a funding fee. Holding the same underlying asset for a full year incurs no additional funding rate payment, regardless of market sentiment.

Stock Futures can incur annualized holding costs reaching high double digits during strong market trends; Tokenized Stocks, while having no Funding Fee, involve subscription/redemption spreads and on-chain transaction costs. In comparison, the holding cost structure of real US stock spots is the cleanest among the three.

Advantage 2: Deeper Asset Coverage, Incomparable to the Other Two Models

The brokerage direct model covers thousands of US-listed stocks and ETFs, far exceeding the approximately 200-260 of Tokenized Stocks and the limited underlying assets of Stock Futures. For users needing to allocate to mid-cap companies, sector ETFs, or REITs, the brokerage direct model is a more reliable stablecoin entry method.

Tokenized Stocks and Stock Futures mainly cover popular large-cap assets, offering almost no choice for allocating to mid-cap companies, sector ETFs, or REITs. In terms of the number of available assets, the brokerage direct model currently has no comparable competitor.

Advantage 3: Real Shareholder Rights – A Difference in Nature, Not Degree

Holding real stocks means dividends are typically credited to the account in cash; voting rights (where applicable) can be exercised through formal proxy voting mechanisms (specific rights are subject to account structure and regional limitations).

Stock Futures have no shareholder attributes whatsoever; the so-called voting in Tokenized Stocks is merely "expressing preferences to the issuer" with no legal force. The brokerage direct model is the only path among the three where shareholder rights exist at a legal level.

Advantage 4: Stablecoin On-Ramp, Reducing Reliance on Traditional Banking Channels

Some brokerage platforms support USDT/USDC deposits and withdrawals, reducing reliance on traditional USD wire transfer paths. For users without overseas bank accounts, this represents a substantial lowering of the entry barrier.

Traditional Hong Kong/US stock brokers basically require bank wire transfers, which is problematic without an overseas account. Supporting stablecoin deposits is the biggest practical advantage of platforms that currently offer this feature.

Advantage 5: Transferable Holdings, Open Exit Path

Under the brokerage direct model, if the platform supports standard securities transfer mechanisms like ACATS/DTC, users can directly migrate their positions to other licensed brokers without needing to sell and then rebuild positions. This means the exit path is open, preventing users from being passively locked in due to platform changes.

Tokenized Stocks can only be redeemed for stablecoins, and closing Stock Futures contracts leaves only USDT; neither offers the option of position migration. The ability to transfer positions means users aren't passively tied to a single platform.

However, the "brokerage direct model" is not monolithic. Platforms that tout "real US stocks" can have vastly different brokerage architectures behind them—directly determining where user assets are held, how SIPC protection is transmitted, and whether users can effectively assert their rights if problems arise on the platform.

While US stock trading appears to occur on the NYSE or Nasdaq, it is the clearing and settlement system regulated by the SEC that truly determines the change in ownership of funds and securities. The entire system is centered around the DTCC: DTC (Depository Trust Company, with over $100 trillion in assets under custody) is responsible for the final settlement of virtually all US stock trades.

The core mechanism of the system is CCP (Central Counterparty) novation—upon any trade execution, NSCC immediately becomes the central counterparty for all transactions. This mechanism reduces direct counterparty risk in the event of a broker bankruptcy. The key is that user assets entering this clearing system share the same underlying infrastructure as customers of large, established brokerages—not on any public blockchain, not within a platform's proprietary account, and not reliant on the platform's own balance sheet.

Currently, there are four main industry architectures for accessing the clearing system, with some differences in capital requirements, client identity disclosure, and SIPC transmission paths:

Source: Public Information Compilation. Note: DVP/RVP are settlement methods commonly used for institutional clients and are not directly parallel with retail brokerage architectures.

For users:

• Fully Disclosed IB: Client identity is fully transmitted to the Clearing Broker, with the clearest SIPC protection path. Suitable for users who value legal certainty.
• Omnibus IB: The clearer only sees the overall positions of the Introducing Broker. SIPC protection is transmitted through the Clearing Broker, with the specific path depending on the client agreement. This is a common access model for international cross-border securities services.
• Self-Clearing: Directly holds NSCC/DTC membership, offering the most direct protection, but requires extremely high capital thresholds. Typically, only large, established brokerages like Schwab, Fidelity, and IBKR are qualified.

So, when a platform claims to offer "real US stocks," the real question to ask is: through which architecture does it access the U.S. clearing system? At what level are user assets protected?

Taking BIT (formerly Matrixport) as an example, its compliance architecture consists of three layers:

• Layer 1: GMC License. This addresses the issue of "whether user assets are segregated." The Bhutan GMC license features strong core requirements for segregating client funds from proprietary assets. User funds are held by an independent custodian and are subject to oversight. This means BIT cannot use user stocks for the platform's own financing or positions—this is the first institutional safeguard distinguishing it from opaque platforms and a prerequisite for "actual holding."
• Layer 2: Omnibus IB Architecture. This addresses the core question of "where user assets actually are." BIT accesses NSCC clearing and DTC custody through two U.S. licensed Clearing Brokers. Both institutions can be independently verified via FINRA BrokerCheck. US stocks purchased through BIT are ultimately held in custody with these two institutions, not on BIT's own accounts or internal ledger. The assets share the same U.S. securities clearing and custody infrastructure used by Schwab and Fidelity clients.
• Layer 3: SIPC Protection. This addresses the question of "how is the worst-case scenario covered?" Since BIT's clearing institutions are SIPC members, this layer of protection can be transmitted to end-users through the account structure and client agreement via the Clearing Broker, providing a statutory safety net (the specific transmission path is subject to the client agreement).

Source: Public Information Compilation

IV. Conclusion

Buying US stocks with USDT involves three different paths leading to three fundamentally distinct assets. Tokenized Stocks represent on-chain economic mappings, with shareholder identity resting with the issuer. Stock Futures track price movements and are unrelated to holding stocks. The brokerage direct model is the only path that actually buys the stock itself—offering the most complete rights and the cleanest long-term holding cost structure. Even within the brokerage direct model, architectural differences determine the actual level of asset protection. The underlying clearing institution and whether the compliance architecture is publicly verifiable are points worth carefully checking before choosing a platform.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. It should not be interpreted as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or financial instrument. All investments involve risk. Readers should conduct their own thorough research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.