加密 CEX 扎堆卖美股，传统券商迎来“不速之客”

Author: momo, ChainCatcher

Selling US stocks has become a top priority for crypto CEXs.

On one hand, the spillover demand from US stocks is simply too tempting. The US stock market has been on a sustained hot streak over the past few years, and investors outside the US have high demand for star assets like Nvidia, as well as upcoming IPOs such as SpaceX and OpenAI. Traditional brokerages, constrained by regulatory uncertainties and compliance costs, find it difficult to efficiently capture this global investor traffic. However, with the SEC approving Nasdaq's pilot for tokenized stock trading and Wall Street experimenting with tokenization, it has become possible for crypto CEXs to enter the US stock market.

On the other hand, this craze also exposes the traffic predicament of crypto CEXs themselves. The hotter the US stock market gets, the colder the crypto market becomes, with few strong catalysts on the horizon to reverse this trend in the short term.

However, the crypto industry has never been defined by winning during favorable periods, but always by reshuffling the deck during crises and turning points. The worst of times are often the best of times for crypto CEXs. The 94 regulatory purge helped establish Binance's dominant position. Today, the US stock business might be creating a new watershed moment for crypto CEXs.

Looking at the recent accelerated paths for US stock expansion, there are mainly two routes: "direct connection with traditional brokerages" and sticking with "stock tokenization." This article uses Binance and Bitget as representatives of these two paths, comparing their similarities and differences across a dozen detailed dimensions, and exploring whether these US stock initiatives by crypto CEXs can eat into the market share of traditional brokerages.

I. Why were previous US stock products from crypto CEXs lackluster?

Before the formal comparison, let's briefly discuss why, after most major exchanges launched US stock products last year, CEXs have recently proposed new US stock offerings en masse.

The previous generation of US stock products mostly came in two forms: one was Contracts for Difference (CFDs), where users traded on stock price movements without actually touching the underlying stocks; the other was integrating with RWA tokenization platforms like Ondo, packaging US stock exposure into on-chain assets and placing them within the exchange's entry point.

These two approaches solved the "whether it exists" problem but didn't fully solve the "whether it works well" problem.

CFDs are more like trading tools, suitable for short-term directional bets, but they are far from real stock assets; early tokenized stocks also presented many pain points in actual user experience.

First, the biggest concern for everyone was whether the underlying assets were genuine US stocks and had real US stock liquidity. Additionally, there were many other experiential issues. When discussing the new generation of tokenized US stock products, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen mentioned several pain points most frequently reported by users in the previous generation of products. For example, excessive slippage on large orders, making the trading experience feel less like buying blue-chip stocks and more like trading illiquid on-chain assets; dividend processing wasn't smooth enough, meaning the synchronization on the token side wasn't strong when the underlying stock paid dividends; and during corporate actions like stock splits or reverse splits, the price and position mapping often confused users.

Another issue was capital efficiency. Early tokenized US stocks were mostly just "tradable assets." Once purchased, they could largely only sit in the account waiting for price fluctuations. They could hardly be used as margin for futures or unified accounts, nor could they easily integrate with the exchange's ecosystem like wealth management or lending products. For crypto users, this diminished the composability and capital efficiency that tokenization should ideally offer.

The recent US stock solutions from CEXs essentially revolve around improving these pain points. The new moves by Binance and Bitget represent two different paths. The former leans towards direct brokerage connection and real stock trading, whereas the latter attempts to integrate real US stock liquidity, tokenized mapping, and the exchange ecosystem through Reality/rToken.

Next, we will compare the details of the two solutions based on several dimensions where users have experienced pain points.

II. Two New US Stock Paths: Direct Brokerage Connection vs. Sticking with Tokenization

1. Product Underpinning: What exactly are users buying?

The products from both Binance and Bitget have solved the fundamental issue of directly connecting to US stock liquidity, and both utilize the underlying custodian, Alpaca, to achieve this. Alpaca is a compliant US stock brokerage infrastructure, currently also supporting the backend for other key tokenization players like Ondo Finance, Dinari, and xStocks.

Specifically, Binance takes the "brokerage entry point" route. Its US stock business has orders handled by introducing broker Nest Trading, with the backend connected to Alpaca for execution, clearing, and custody.

Bitget, on the other hand, takes the "tokenization" route. Users hold rToken, but orders are executed by directly connecting to the US stock market through Reality's on-chain counter. The underlying stocks are custodied by Alpaca, with rToken serving as a 1:1 on-chain certificate. Therefore, the price and depth of rToken are not determined by internal platform matching but are connected to real US stock liquidity.

However, since rToken is not a stock directly held in a user's traditional brokerage account, where does the security guarantee for this tokenized certificate come from? Currently, Bitget's official response is that it provides a three-layer safeguard through custody by a licensed broker, independent asset segregation, and real-time proof of reserves.

Regarding CRS, Bitget's rToken currently does not involve CRS at the traditional brokerage account level; Binance's path is closer to a brokerage model and may be subject to regulatory influence in the future.

In summary, both solve the problem of "whether it is a real US stock asset." Binance is more like a brokerage entry point, while Bitget tokenizes real assets into the on-chain ecosystem, emphasizing on-chain attributes and capital efficiency.

2. Asset Rights: What do you get besides price movements?

For users, buying US stocks isn't just about price fluctuations; it also involves a series of rights and corporate actions such as dividends, dividend taxes, stock splits, reverse splits, mergers, delistings, and voting rights. The closer it gets to a real stock, the more these details must be handled correctly.

Based on public information, the latest solutions from Binance and Bitget no longer just allow users to trade a price symbol of a US stock; they are both making efforts to supplement the fundamental economic rights associated with real US stocks.

Corporate actions like dividend payouts, dividend taxes, stock splits, and reverse splits are inherently dependent on underlying brokerage infrastructure like Alpaca for processing. Therefore, regarding these basic rights, the direction of both platforms is similar. Whenever a dividend or corporate action occurs for the underlying US stock, the platform needs to synchronize the corresponding results to the user's account.

The difference lies in the fulfillment method. Binance reflects it more within the US stock account, whereas Bitget maps it to the token side via Reality/rToken. Stock dividends are distributed 1:1 in token form in real-time to the account, while cash dividends are automatically converted to USDT and deposited directly.

Voting rights are also not a major differentiator. Whether in the brokerage entry model or the rToken model, under the structures of non-US users, fragmented holdings, and platform nominee arrangements, users typically do not directly enjoy shareholder voting rights of the listed company. Voting rights are not a core selling point of such products.

The advantage of Bitget's tokenization approach is that stock-related rights that the direct brokerage connection model can achieve, Bitget can also achieve. Furthermore, it takes a step further by allowing stock rights, once within the CEX, to become more efficiently circulated assets.

3. Trading Experience and Capital Efficiency

Let's look at the overall trading experience and asset efficiency.

In terms of the number of assets, Binance offers broader coverage; Bitget focuses on mainstream stocks, soon to list 500 US stocks accounting for the top 98% of market trading volume, emphasizing a curated selection and liquidity coverage.

Regarding trading hours, Binance's schedule is generally close to traditional US stock market hours; Bitget enables 7x24 hour trading through tokenization, which aligns better with crypto user habits.

Some might ask, where does liquidity come from after the US stock market closes? The Bitget CEO responded on Twitter that it is provided by third-party market makers who hold spot inventory to handle buy and sell orders. This implies that liquidity during non-US market hours is not infinite. One-sided buying pressure during weekends or extreme market conditions could drive prices up, potentially causing volatility at Monday's market open.

Regarding fees, Bitget's fees currently appear relatively lower. Both offer zero commission on trades, but there is a platform fee. The base rate is 0.1%, but before August 31, it is 0.05%. Stacking BGB can lower this to a minimum of 0.04%, which is more favorable for high-frequency traders.

On the topic of trading friction, when Binance settles with USDC etc., users holding USDT need to exchange it first; Bitget directly uses USDT, simplifying the path.

The most significant difference lies in ecosystem integration. Binance's current US stock product is not deeply integrated with its ecosystem. In contrast, Bitget's rToken can enter the unified account system, serving as margin for futures, collateral for lending, etc., thereby improving capital efficiency. It currently supports using 15 stock tokens, including Nvidia and Micron, as margin for futures trading.

Finally, let's summarize the pros and cons of the two paths.

Binance's direct brokerage connection model's biggest advantage is that users are closer to traditional US stock trading. Since the underlying assets are real US stocks with liquidity from the real market and broader asset coverage, it also inspires greater trust among users without crypto trading experience. However, the downside is that it's relatively straightforward, and users' capital efficiency isn't fully realized.

Bitget's tokenization model's advantage is that it achieves the core benefits of a direct brokerage connection—namely liquidity and dividend payouts—and builds upon them. Bitget further enhances capital efficiency by allowing users to trade 7x24, use tokenized stock assets as margin for futures and in more trading scenarios, all at a lower fee. However, for some more cautious users, directly holding a stock might feel safer than holding a token. It is expected that as Bitget refines the experience of this type of tokenized US stock offering, user concerns will gradually diminish.

III. Can Crypto Exchanges Eat the Traditional Brokerages' Lunch?

US stock trading is never just a competition between crypto CEXs. In the long run, crypto CEXs will have to contend with brokerages.

1. The Advantages and Challenges of Crypto CEXs Selling US Stocks are Very Specific

Looking at several key dimensions, the advantages of crypto CEXs over traditional brokerages lie in these areas: trading hours, where crypto CEXs can achieve 24/7 trading through tokenization, better meeting investors' trading needs; and account opening and accessibility, where traditional brokerages face more geographical restrictions, while crypto CEXs offer broader coverage.

However, the core advantage lies in capital efficiency and ecosystem extensibility. In a traditional brokerage account, stock funds are relatively isolated from other assets, making cross-market usage costly. Crypto CEXs allow stocks, stablecoins, and crypto assets to share margin, and be used for lending, derivatives, and on-chain financial scenarios. This might be why Bitget persists with the tokenization path, putting US stocks on-chain to turn them into 7x24 tradable, collateralizable, and reusable assets. This is currently the strongest way to differentiate from the core competencies of traditional brokerages.

Of course, the challenges are also very specific. The closer a product gets to the real stock market, the higher the user expectations become, demanding performance akin to traditional financial products. Platforms must prove the underlying stocks genuinely exist, ensure custody and reserves are transparent, and handle details like dividends, stock splits, taxes, and liquidity properly. For tokenized products especially, price stability and sufficient liquidity during non-trading hours or extreme market conditions will directly determine user trust.

2. The Endgame Might Not Be One Replacing the Other, but Both Moving Towards a Universal Exchange

Currently, the bigger trend is that traditional finance and crypto finance are moving towards each other.

On one side, crypto CEXs are no longer content with just crypto-to-crypto trading. Binance has directly connected with brokerages for US stocks, and Bitget has clearly articulated its strategy as a Universal Exchange (UEX), aiming to place stocks