Giwa Chain mainnet is almost here.
Dear launchpads, please allow us to make money for at least 48 hours before turning us into long-term investors. 😭
GM CT, happy new week!
Dear launchpads, please allow us to make money for at least 48 hours before turning us into long-term investors. 😭
GM CT, happy new week!
6
0
5
200
ZORD retweeted
One thing worth paying attention to as @grvt_io expands is how users actually bring capital onto the exchange.
Grvt's latest update introduces two additional deposit routes:
→ $USDG from Robinhood Chain
→ $USDC from Arc
This might look like a minor integration, but there's a angle here.
Robinhood Chain is building around tokenized financial assets, while Arc focuses on stablecoin-based financial infrastructure.
Supporting deposits from these networks gives users additional ways to fund their Grvt accounts without first moving assets through another supported chain.
And that matters as $Grvt expands its trading and investment products.
An exchange can offer hundreds of markets, but access to those markets also depends on how easily users can bring capital onto the platform.
The next thing worth tracking is whether these additional deposit routes translate into meaningful inflows and active trading accounts.
Expanding market access is one part of building an exchange. Making it easier for capital to reach those markets is equally important.
Grvt's latest update introduces two additional deposit routes:
→ $USDG from Robinhood Chain
→ $USDC from Arc
This might look like a minor integration, but there's a angle here.
Robinhood Chain is building around tokenized financial assets, while Arc focuses on stablecoin-based financial infrastructure.
Supporting deposits from these networks gives users additional ways to fund their Grvt accounts without first moving assets through another supported chain.
And that matters as $Grvt expands its trading and investment products.
An exchange can offer hundreds of markets, but access to those markets also depends on how easily users can bring capital onto the platform.
The next thing worth tracking is whether these additional deposit routes translate into meaningful inflows and active trading accounts.
Expanding market access is one part of building an exchange. Making it easier for capital to reach those markets is equally important.
New updates 🧱
21
4
23
1,623
ZORD retweeted
Ethereum is losing RWA market share, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s losing capital.
That’s what makes the current shift in tokenization interesting.
@ethereum still accounts for more than 40% of the #RWA market, yet its share has fallen by nearly 30 percentage points anwhile, @solana, @BNBCHAIN, @StellarOrg and @avax are gaining ground.
What’s driving this?
Different networks offer different advantages. Some are better positioned for trading and retail distribution
while others focus on payments, institutional settlement or customizable financial infrastructure.
As tokenization expands into U.S. Treasuries, private credit, equities and commodities, issuers have more reasons to explore networks beyond @ethereum.
But there’s an important distinction here.
Losing market share isn’t the same as losing market value.
@ethereum can continue growing in absolute terms while other networks grow faster and capture a larger portion of the market.
The real question is no longer which blockchain can tokenize an asset.
It’s which networks can attract issuers, build liquidity and make those assets useful beyond simply existing on-chain.
I think we’re moving toward a multi-chain RWA market, where different networks compete for different parts of the financial system.
Ethereum may remain a dominant player, but its dominance is no longer the only story worth watching.
The next phase of #RWA growth will be about adoption, liquidity and utility not just tokenization.

That’s what makes the current shift in tokenization interesting.
@ethereum still accounts for more than 40% of the #RWA market, yet its share has fallen by nearly 30 percentage points anwhile, @solana, @BNBCHAIN, @StellarOrg and @avax are gaining ground.
What’s driving this?
Different networks offer different advantages. Some are better positioned for trading and retail distribution
while others focus on payments, institutional settlement or customizable financial infrastructure.
As tokenization expands into U.S. Treasuries, private credit, equities and commodities, issuers have more reasons to explore networks beyond @ethereum.
But there’s an important distinction here.
Losing market share isn’t the same as losing market value.
@ethereum can continue growing in absolute terms while other networks grow faster and capture a larger portion of the market.
The real question is no longer which blockchain can tokenize an asset.
It’s which networks can attract issuers, build liquidity and make those assets useful beyond simply existing on-chain.
I think we’re moving toward a multi-chain RWA market, where different networks compete for different parts of the financial system.
Ethereum may remain a dominant player, but its dominance is no longer the only story worth watching.
The next phase of #RWA growth will be about adoption, liquidity and utility not just tokenization.

34
5
63
3,083
One thing worth paying attention to as @grvt_io expands is how users actually bring capital onto the exchange.
Grvt's latest update introduces two additional deposit routes:
→ $USDG from Robinhood Chain
→ $USDC from Arc
This might look like a minor integration, but there's a angle here.
Robinhood Chain is building around tokenized financial assets, while Arc focuses on stablecoin-based financial infrastructure.
Supporting deposits from these networks gives users additional ways to fund their Grvt accounts without first moving assets through another supported chain.
And that matters as $Grvt expands its trading and investment products.
An exchange can offer hundreds of markets, but access to those markets also depends on how easily users can bring capital onto the platform.
The next thing worth tracking is whether these additional deposit routes translate into meaningful inflows and active trading accounts.
Expanding market access is one part of building an exchange. Making it easier for capital to reach those markets is equally important.
Grvt's latest update introduces two additional deposit routes:
→ $USDG from Robinhood Chain
→ $USDC from Arc
This might look like a minor integration, but there's a angle here.
Robinhood Chain is building around tokenized financial assets, while Arc focuses on stablecoin-based financial infrastructure.
Supporting deposits from these networks gives users additional ways to fund their Grvt accounts without first moving assets through another supported chain.
And that matters as $Grvt expands its trading and investment products.
An exchange can offer hundreds of markets, but access to those markets also depends on how easily users can bring capital onto the platform.
The next thing worth tracking is whether these additional deposit routes translate into meaningful inflows and active trading accounts.
Expanding market access is one part of building an exchange. Making it easier for capital to reach those markets is equally important.
New updates 🧱
21
4
23
1,623
ZORD retweeted
I don't think VCs expanding beyond crypto means the industry is cooked.
If anything, crypto could benefit from becoming less dependent on VC-funded token launches.
We've seen projects raise millions privately, launch at ridiculous FDVs, distribute airdrops, and then expect retail investors to provide the liquidity.
Who exactly is supposed to buy those valuations?
VC capital leaving speculative launches isn't necessarily bearish. It could force:
• better valuations
• more sustainable token economics
• projects that actually need users
And personally, I think we're getting closer to a market bottom.
Not because VCs are changing their names, but because the speculative funding model that supported so many overpriced launches is becoming harder to sustain.
If anything, crypto could benefit from becoming less dependent on VC-funded token launches.
We've seen projects raise millions privately, launch at ridiculous FDVs, distribute airdrops, and then expect retail investors to provide the liquidity.
Who exactly is supposed to buy those valuations?
VC capital leaving speculative launches isn't necessarily bearish. It could force:
• better valuations
• more sustainable token economics
• projects that actually need users
And personally, I think we're getting closer to a market bottom.
Not because VCs are changing their names, but because the speculative funding model that supported so many overpriced launches is becoming harder to sustain.
You know crypto is cooked when some of its biggest VCs start shifting their attention and money to other industries.
a16z crypto just rebranded to a16z Frontier, expanding into AI, robotics and other industries.
Paradigm raised a $1.2B fund in July that also covers AI and robotics, while Haun Ventures has expanded beyond crypto.
For context, a16z raised $4.5B for its crypto fund in 2022, compared to $2.2B for its latest fund.
These are some of crypto's biggest investors.
They're not abandoning crypto, but they're increasingly looking elsewhere.
And that could make fundraising even harder for crypto projects, especially those with nothing to offer beyond launching a token.
13
3
35
1,682
ZORD retweeted
A company paying salaries onchain shouldn't have to expose every employee's paycheck.
That's one of the practical problems @primus_labs and @allscaleio tested on BNB Chain.
On September 1, both teams completed a technical validation of confidential stablecoin payroll, involving s and four sample payments.
The results were straightforward:
• All four payments were recorded onchain.
• Individual salary amounts remained encrypted.
• Authorized users successfully recovered the correct salary figures.
✦ So how does this work?
AllScale handles payroll preparation, settlement, and reconciliation, while Primus uses FHETransform to encrypt salary amounts before they’re submitted to the smart contract.
Employees can then access their salary details by signing a wallet message, without paying gas to view them.
However, this doesn’t make payroll completely anonymous.
- Company wallets
- Recipient addresses
- Timestamps
- Transaction records
…remain visible. The protection applies to compensation amounts.
That’s an important distinction.
Businesses can retain public settlement records without exposing individual salaries.
The validation involved only four sample payments, so larger-scale deployment and operational readiness still need further testing.
Now, with @primus_labs Epoch 2 underway, there's also an opportunity for creators researching these technical developments.
✦ Here’s what participants should know:
→ 0.3% of the $PRIM supply is allocated to the campaign.
→ The top 450 creators across three language regions qualify for rewards.
→ Your four highest-scoring eligible posts determine your Mindshare score.
→ Each creator can submit up to 10 posts per epoch.
There’s also a referral multiplier tied to Primus XP activity, which can contribute to your final score.
For me, the useful part of this campaign is having more reasons to examine what Primus is actually building, from confidential payroll to verifiable offchain data.
If you're planning to participate in Epoch 2, you can join through my referral link:
s.kaito.ai/RsenLO4
That's one of the practical problems @primus_labs and @allscaleio tested on BNB Chain.
On September 1, both teams completed a technical validation of confidential stablecoin payroll, involving s and four sample payments.
The results were straightforward:
• All four payments were recorded onchain.
• Individual salary amounts remained encrypted.
• Authorized users successfully recovered the correct salary figures.
✦ So how does this work?
AllScale handles payroll preparation, settlement, and reconciliation, while Primus uses FHETransform to encrypt salary amounts before they’re submitted to the smart contract.
Employees can then access their salary details by signing a wallet message, without paying gas to view them.
However, this doesn’t make payroll completely anonymous.
- Company wallets
- Recipient addresses
- Timestamps
- Transaction records
…remain visible. The protection applies to compensation amounts.
That’s an important distinction.
Businesses can retain public settlement records without exposing individual salaries.
The validation involved only four sample payments, so larger-scale deployment and operational readiness still need further testing.
Now, with @primus_labs Epoch 2 underway, there's also an opportunity for creators researching these technical developments.
✦ Here’s what participants should know:
→ 0.3% of the $PRIM supply is allocated to the campaign.
→ The top 450 creators across three language regions qualify for rewards.
→ Your four highest-scoring eligible posts determine your Mindshare score.
→ Each creator can submit up to 10 posts per epoch.
There’s also a referral multiplier tied to Primus XP activity, which can contribute to your final score.
For me, the useful part of this campaign is having more reasons to examine what Primus is actually building, from confidential payroll to verifiable offchain data.
If you're planning to participate in Epoch 2, you can join through my referral link:
s.kaito.ai/RsenLO4
70
8
120
4,716
ZORD retweeted
why should fixed-income opportunities be mostly associated with banks and large investors?
i think this is one area where bringing traditional finance on-chain could make a real difference...
and it's something @grvt_io is working towards with grvt earn
for years, have been an important part of how institutions manage their capital
but accessing similar opportunities hasn't always been simple for everyday users
grvt wants to change that by bringing tokenized fixed-income strategies to its self-custodial platform
here's what makes it interesting
> access to strategies traditionally associated with institutional investors
> eligible assets targeting up to 11% apy, not guaranteed
> opportunities brought on-chain through tokenization
> more control over assets through a self-custodial approach
and there's a much bigger picture here
the traditional fixed-income market is estimated at around $160T
grvt isn't trying to move all of that on-chain, but making even a small part of these opportunities more accessible is an interesting direction
personally, i think the real value isn't just the potential yield
it's giving more people access to financial strategies that were traditionally harder to reach
of course, institutional-style strategies still carry risks, and higher target yields don't mean guaranteed returns
but if grvt can make these opportunities easier to access and understand, that's a meaningful step towards connecting traditional finance with crypto...
i think this is one area where bringing traditional finance on-chain could make a real difference...
and it's something @grvt_io is working towards with grvt earn
for years, have been an important part of how institutions manage their capital
but accessing similar opportunities hasn't always been simple for everyday users
grvt wants to change that by bringing tokenized fixed-income strategies to its self-custodial platform
here's what makes it interesting
> access to strategies traditionally associated with institutional investors
> eligible assets targeting up to 11% apy, not guaranteed
> opportunities brought on-chain through tokenization
> more control over assets through a self-custodial approach
and there's a much bigger picture here
the traditional fixed-income market is estimated at around $160T
grvt isn't trying to move all of that on-chain, but making even a small part of these opportunities more accessible is an interesting direction
personally, i think the real value isn't just the potential yield
it's giving more people access to financial strategies that were traditionally harder to reach
of course, institutional-style strategies still carry risks, and higher target yields don't mean guaranteed returns
but if grvt can make these opportunities easier to access and understand, that's a meaningful step towards connecting traditional finance with crypto...
347
75
484
22,795
ZORD retweeted
Where does the yield on your trading collateral actually come from?
I was going through @grvt_io's yield infrastructure, and there's an important distinction between its existing system and what's coming with Grvt 2.0.
Here's how it works:
➊ DeFi lending yield
$Grvt's Yield exchange reserves into Ethereum-based lending protocols, including Aave V3.
Rather than leaving those reserves inactive, the system generates lending returns while maintaining liquidity for trading and withdrawals.
➋ Tokenized fixed-income yield
Grvt Earn is designed to provide access to traditional fixed-income strategies, targeting up to 11% APY.
These returns are expected to come from underlying financial assets through interest payments, premiums and receivables.
Unlike promotional rewards, this introduces asset-backed income sources, although returns aren't guaranteed.
➌ What happens when you trade?
Grvt's planned Yield as Margin feature would allow eligible Earn balances to continue generating yield while supporting trading positions.
This doesn't eliminate trading or collateral risk. It changes how the same capital can be utilized.
The important distinction is that yield has an identifiable source, whether through DeFi lending or traditional fixed-income assets.
Understanding those sources, alongside liquidity and risk, is essential when evaluating any yield-bearing trading platform.
I was going through @grvt_io's yield infrastructure, and there's an important distinction between its existing system and what's coming with Grvt 2.0.
Here's how it works:
➊ DeFi lending yield
$Grvt's Yield exchange reserves into Ethereum-based lending protocols, including Aave V3.
Rather than leaving those reserves inactive, the system generates lending returns while maintaining liquidity for trading and withdrawals.
➋ Tokenized fixed-income yield
Grvt Earn is designed to provide access to traditional fixed-income strategies, targeting up to 11% APY.
These returns are expected to come from underlying financial assets through interest payments, premiums and receivables.
Unlike promotional rewards, this introduces asset-backed income sources, although returns aren't guaranteed.
➌ What happens when you trade?
Grvt's planned Yield as Margin feature would allow eligible Earn balances to continue generating yield while supporting trading positions.
This doesn't eliminate trading or collateral risk. It changes how the same capital can be utilized.
The important distinction is that yield has an identifiable source, whether through DeFi lending or traditional fixed-income assets.
Understanding those sources, alongside liquidity and risk, is essential when evaluating any yield-bearing trading platform.
Beyond the recent 1.1M $GRVT token burn, there's another reason I'm paying closer attention to @grvt_io.
The exchange is already handling substantial trading activity, and I think its infrastructure deserves more attention.
Grvt combines offchain order matching with ZK-powered aders to access centralized exchange-style execution while retaining self-custody and transaction privacy.
It also supports around 200 markets across crypto and traditional assets, with leverage of up to 50x.
Now consider the numbers from DefiLlama:
→ $509M in 24H perp volume
→ $14.65B in monthly volume
→ $441M in open interest
→ Over $441B in cumulative volume
→ ~$36M in TVL
Meanwhile, $GRVT has a circulating market cap of roughly $34M, compared with an FDV near $294M.
That valuation gap matters, particularly when considering future token supply.
But what makes me bullish on Grvt's product direction is its focus on capital efficiency.
Grvt already supports yield-generating margin, and its 2.0 roadmap aims to extend this through tokenized fixed-income products and yield as margin.
Essentially, users could keep eligible capital earning while using it to support trading positions.
My take: Grvt has demonstrated meaningful trading activity. The next opportunity is turning that activity into stronger capital retention and sustainable platform economics.
That's what makes Grvt 2.0 worth following beyond the token burn.
76
12
145
8,073
ZORD retweeted
Ethereum recorded ~$49.5B in DeFi TVL on Oct 23, 2026, while Arbitrum One held ~$1.45B on Oct 24.
but TVL alone doesn’t explain what makes each ecosystem different.
the protocols driving activity reveal how each is developing its own role in onchain finance.
@ethereum hosts ructure:
→ liquid staking: @LidoFinance
→ lending: @aave, @Morpho, @sparkdotfi
→ restaking: @eigenCloud
→ trading/liquidity: @Uniswap
→ stablecoins/collateral: @SkyEcosystem
→ synthetic dollars/yield: @ethena
these protocols support staking, lending, liquidity, stablecoins, and yield generation
@arbitrum has a strong ecosystem built around DeFi and specialized financial markets:
→ DEXs: @Uniswap
→ lending: @aave, @Morpho, @0xFluid, @compoundfinance, @Dolomite_io
→ perpetuals: @GMX_IO, @Variational_io
→ yield trading: @pendle_fi
other participants include @gains_trade, @Ostium, @muxprotocol, @borosfi, @Overtime_io, and @RAILGUN_Project
together, they support trading, lending, derivatives, yield strategies, and privacy-focused transactions
the ecosystems are also expanding beyond traditional DeFi
Ethereum continues to support staking, stablecoins, lending, and institutional financial infrastructure
Arbitrum is expanding through real-world assets, specialized applications, and Orbit chains
@RobinhoodCrypto, built using Arbitrum technology, processed ~793.7M transactions in Q3 2026. Arbitrum’s September revenue reportedly exceeded $5M, largely driven by Orbit activity
Arbitrum One has highlighted 7,400+ RWAs, while its Stablecoin Growth Program encourages $USDG adoption through a 2M $ARB incentive pool
Ethereum provides settlement infrastructure and hosts major financial protocols
Arbitrum extends that ecosystem with lower-cost transactions and specialized financial markets
both play different roles in the development of onchain finance
the protocols attracting liquidity, users, and transaction volume will be worth watching
but TVL alone doesn’t explain what makes each ecosystem different.
the protocols driving activity reveal how each is developing its own role in onchain finance.
@ethereum hosts ructure:
→ liquid staking: @LidoFinance
→ lending: @aave, @Morpho, @sparkdotfi
→ restaking: @eigenCloud
→ trading/liquidity: @Uniswap
→ stablecoins/collateral: @SkyEcosystem
→ synthetic dollars/yield: @ethena
these protocols support staking, lending, liquidity, stablecoins, and yield generation
@arbitrum has a strong ecosystem built around DeFi and specialized financial markets:
→ DEXs: @Uniswap
→ lending: @aave, @Morpho, @0xFluid, @compoundfinance, @Dolomite_io
→ perpetuals: @GMX_IO, @Variational_io
→ yield trading: @pendle_fi
other participants include @gains_trade, @Ostium, @muxprotocol, @borosfi, @Overtime_io, and @RAILGUN_Project
together, they support trading, lending, derivatives, yield strategies, and privacy-focused transactions
the ecosystems are also expanding beyond traditional DeFi
Ethereum continues to support staking, stablecoins, lending, and institutional financial infrastructure
Arbitrum is expanding through real-world assets, specialized applications, and Orbit chains
@RobinhoodCrypto, built using Arbitrum technology, processed ~793.7M transactions in Q3 2026. Arbitrum’s September revenue reportedly exceeded $5M, largely driven by Orbit activity
Arbitrum One has highlighted 7,400+ RWAs, while its Stablecoin Growth Program encourages $USDG adoption through a 2M $ARB incentive pool
Ethereum provides settlement infrastructure and hosts major financial protocols
Arbitrum extends that ecosystem with lower-cost transactions and specialized financial markets
both play different roles in the development of onchain finance
the protocols attracting liquidity, users, and transaction volume will be worth watching
77
13
105
12,627
I don't think VCs expanding beyond crypto means the industry is cooked.
If anything, crypto could benefit from becoming less dependent on VC-funded token launches.
We've seen projects raise millions privately, launch at ridiculous FDVs, distribute airdrops, and then expect retail investors to provide the liquidity.
Who exactly is supposed to buy those valuations?
VC capital leaving speculative launches isn't necessarily bearish. It could force:
• better valuations
• more sustainable token economics
• projects that actually need users
And personally, I think we're getting closer to a market bottom.
Not because VCs are changing their names, but because the speculative funding model that supported so many overpriced launches is becoming harder to sustain.
If anything, crypto could benefit from becoming less dependent on VC-funded token launches.
We've seen projects raise millions privately, launch at ridiculous FDVs, distribute airdrops, and then expect retail investors to provide the liquidity.
Who exactly is supposed to buy those valuations?
VC capital leaving speculative launches isn't necessarily bearish. It could force:
• better valuations
• more sustainable token economics
• projects that actually need users
And personally, I think we're getting closer to a market bottom.
Not because VCs are changing their names, but because the speculative funding model that supported so many overpriced launches is becoming harder to sustain.
You know crypto is cooked when some of its biggest VCs start shifting their attention and money to other industries.
a16z crypto just rebranded to a16z Frontier, expanding into AI, robotics and other industries.
Paradigm raised a $1.2B fund in July that also covers AI and robotics, while Haun Ventures has expanded beyond crypto.
For context, a16z raised $4.5B for its crypto fund in 2022, compared to $2.2B for its latest fund.
These are some of crypto's biggest investors.
They're not abandoning crypto, but they're increasingly looking elsewhere.
And that could make fundraising even harder for crypto projects, especially those with nothing to offer beyond launching a token.
13
3
35
1,682
ZORD retweeted
As someone who spends a lot of time researching crypto projects
I think one of the worst things you can do is confuse how much research you've done with how much conviction you should have.
It's a funny market where you can spend 40 hours reading docs, studying tokenomics, listening to founder interviews, and somehow end up more emotionally attached to a coin than the team building it.
One of the biggest problems with conviction in crypto is that people treat it like something they're supposed to maintain, rather than something they're supposed to update.
You build a thesis around adoption, revenue, token demand, whatever. Six months later, usage is down, competitors are eating market share, unlocks are approaching, and you're still defending the same thesis you wrote when everything looked different.
At that point, are you holding because the opportunity is still good, or because you've spent so much time convincing yourself it is?
And I think we learn some of the wrong lessons about conviction from successful investors.
Someone holds through an 80% drawdown and makes 20x. We call it generational conviction.
Someone else does the same thing and loses everything. We call it marrying your bags.
But the outcome alone doesn't tell you whether either decision was good.
There's definitely a case for strong conviction. Some of the best trades require holding through periods where almost everyone thinks you're wrong.
But conviction should be confidence in a thesis that's still supported by evidence, not loyalty to the version of the project you first fell in love with.
A useful question is whether you'd still buy the same position today, at today's price, knowing everything you now know.
If the answer is no, it's probably worth figuring out what exactly you're still holding on to.
temmy cares.
I think one of the worst things you can do is confuse how much research you've done with how much conviction you should have.
It's a funny market where you can spend 40 hours reading docs, studying tokenomics, listening to founder interviews, and somehow end up more emotionally attached to a coin than the team building it.
One of the biggest problems with conviction in crypto is that people treat it like something they're supposed to maintain, rather than something they're supposed to update.
You build a thesis around adoption, revenue, token demand, whatever. Six months later, usage is down, competitors are eating market share, unlocks are approaching, and you're still defending the same thesis you wrote when everything looked different.
At that point, are you holding because the opportunity is still good, or because you've spent so much time convincing yourself it is?
And I think we learn some of the wrong lessons about conviction from successful investors.
Someone holds through an 80% drawdown and makes 20x. We call it generational conviction.
Someone else does the same thing and loses everything. We call it marrying your bags.
But the outcome alone doesn't tell you whether either decision was good.
There's definitely a case for strong conviction. Some of the best trades require holding through periods where almost everyone thinks you're wrong.
But conviction should be confidence in a thesis that's still supported by evidence, not loyalty to the version of the project you first fell in love with.
A useful question is whether you'd still buy the same position today, at today's price, knowing everything you now know.
If the answer is no, it's probably worth figuring out what exactly you're still holding on to.
temmy cares.
11
2
28
1,603
ZORD retweeted
Hello @GoatFunded, I experienced similar issue.
I submitted my payout request since 14th October & was scheduled for a call on 9th November, that is about three weeks later.
I expect mine to be rescheduled as well, as it’s only fair that the same consideration is extended to me
I submitted my payout request since 14th October & was scheduled for a call on 9th November, that is about three weeks later.
I expect mine to be rescheduled as well, as it’s only fair that the same consideration is extended to me
@Mr_rayjr00 @EdwardXLreal you may have selected something incorrectly during the booking process, as all our interviewers have available slots well before November 13th.
Our team is already sending you a new booking link, and you should be able to schedule and complete your interview within the next few days.
Just to clarify, GFT only requires verification interviews for a small percentage of traders requesting payouts, and these interviews are normally completed within a few days of receiving the booking link.
8
7
8
286
A company paying salaries onchain shouldn't have to expose every employee's paycheck.
That's one of the practical problems @primus_labs and @allscaleio tested on BNB Chain.
On September 1, both teams completed a technical validation of confidential stablecoin payroll, involving s and four sample payments.
The results were straightforward:
• All four payments were recorded onchain.
• Individual salary amounts remained encrypted.
• Authorized users successfully recovered the correct salary figures.
✦ So how does this work?
AllScale handles payroll preparation, settlement, and reconciliation, while Primus uses FHETransform to encrypt salary amounts before they’re submitted to the smart contract.
Employees can then access their salary details by signing a wallet message, without paying gas to view them.
However, this doesn’t make payroll completely anonymous.
- Company wallets
- Recipient addresses
- Timestamps
- Transaction records
…remain visible. The protection applies to compensation amounts.
That’s an important distinction.
Businesses can retain public settlement records without exposing individual salaries.
The validation involved only four sample payments, so larger-scale deployment and operational readiness still need further testing.
Now, with @primus_labs Epoch 2 underway, there's also an opportunity for creators researching these technical developments.
✦ Here’s what participants should know:
→ 0.3% of the $PRIM supply is allocated to the campaign.
→ The top 450 creators across three language regions qualify for rewards.
→ Your four highest-scoring eligible posts determine your Mindshare score.
→ Each creator can submit up to 10 posts per epoch.
There’s also a referral multiplier tied to Primus XP activity, which can contribute to your final score.
For me, the useful part of this campaign is having more reasons to examine what Primus is actually building, from confidential payroll to verifiable offchain data.
If you're planning to participate in Epoch 2, you can join through my referral link:
s.kaito.ai/RsenLO4
That's one of the practical problems @primus_labs and @allscaleio tested on BNB Chain.
On September 1, both teams completed a technical validation of confidential stablecoin payroll, involving s and four sample payments.
The results were straightforward:
• All four payments were recorded onchain.
• Individual salary amounts remained encrypted.
• Authorized users successfully recovered the correct salary figures.
✦ So how does this work?
AllScale handles payroll preparation, settlement, and reconciliation, while Primus uses FHETransform to encrypt salary amounts before they’re submitted to the smart contract.
Employees can then access their salary details by signing a wallet message, without paying gas to view them.
However, this doesn’t make payroll completely anonymous.
- Company wallets
- Recipient addresses
- Timestamps
- Transaction records
…remain visible. The protection applies to compensation amounts.
That’s an important distinction.
Businesses can retain public settlement records without exposing individual salaries.
The validation involved only four sample payments, so larger-scale deployment and operational readiness still need further testing.
Now, with @primus_labs Epoch 2 underway, there's also an opportunity for creators researching these technical developments.
✦ Here’s what participants should know:
→ 0.3% of the $PRIM supply is allocated to the campaign.
→ The top 450 creators across three language regions qualify for rewards.
→ Your four highest-scoring eligible posts determine your Mindshare score.
→ Each creator can submit up to 10 posts per epoch.
There’s also a referral multiplier tied to Primus XP activity, which can contribute to your final score.
For me, the useful part of this campaign is having more reasons to examine what Primus is actually building, from confidential payroll to verifiable offchain data.
If you're planning to participate in Epoch 2, you can join through my referral link:
s.kaito.ai/RsenLO4
70
8
120
4,716
ZORD retweeted
there are dozens of crypto wallets, but not every wallet supports the same blockchains.
here’s a simple breakdown of the major options ↓
1/ broad multi-chain software wallets
best for managing assets across multiple blockchains.
→ @BitgetWallet > 130+ chains
→ @TrustWallet > 100+ bet_TP > 100 to 1,000+ claimed networks
→ @GemWallet > 100+ blockchains
→ @MathWallet > 200+/223+ public chains
→ @GuardaWallet > 70+ blockchains
→ @CoinomiWallet > 50+ blockchains, 10,000+ tokens
→ @imTokenOfficial > Ethereum, Bitcoin, TRON, Cosmos, and more
→ @exodus > major blockchains + hundreds of tokens
→ @EdgeWallet > 130+ assets
→ @CoinbaseWallet > EVM chains, Solana, Bitcoin, and more
→ @Blockchain > Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other supported networks
→ @BinanceWallet > 30–60+ chains
2/ specialized software wallets
best for specific blockchains, ecosystems, or DeFi activities.
→ @Blockstream Green > Bitcoin, Lightning, and Liquid
→ @monero GUI > Monero only
→ @MyMonero > Monero only; check current service status
→ @MetaMask > EVM networks, plus supported Bitcoin, Solana, and TRON features
→ @myetherwallet (MEW) > Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens
3/ hardware wallets (cold storage)
best for users who want dedicated devices to protect their private keys.
→ @Ledger > 50+ blockchains
→ @Trezor > major blockchains and thousands of supported assets
→ @Tangem > 80–100+ networks, 16,000+ tokens
→ @ELLIPAL Titan 2.0 > 40+ blockchains, 10,000+ tokens
→ @KeystoneWallet 3 Pro > multiple major blockchains
→ @BitBoxSwiss > Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and selected other assets
→ @SafePal S1 > 200+ claimed blockchains
so, which should you use?
here’s a simple breakdown of the major options ↓
1/ broad multi-chain software wallets
best for managing assets across multiple blockchains.
→ @BitgetWallet > 130+ chains
→ @TrustWallet > 100+ bet_TP > 100 to 1,000+ claimed networks
→ @GemWallet > 100+ blockchains
→ @MathWallet > 200+/223+ public chains
→ @GuardaWallet > 70+ blockchains
→ @CoinomiWallet > 50+ blockchains, 10,000+ tokens
→ @imTokenOfficial > Ethereum, Bitcoin, TRON, Cosmos, and more
→ @exodus > major blockchains + hundreds of tokens
→ @EdgeWallet > 130+ assets
→ @CoinbaseWallet > EVM chains, Solana, Bitcoin, and more
→ @Blockchain > Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other supported networks
→ @BinanceWallet > 30–60+ chains
2/ specialized software wallets
best for specific blockchains, ecosystems, or DeFi activities.
→ @Blockstream Green > Bitcoin, Lightning, and Liquid
→ @monero GUI > Monero only
→ @MyMonero > Monero only; check current service status
→ @MetaMask > EVM networks, plus supported Bitcoin, Solana, and TRON features
→ @myetherwallet (MEW) > Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens
3/ hardware wallets (cold storage)
best for users who want dedicated devices to protect their private keys.
→ @Ledger > 50+ blockchains
→ @Trezor > major blockchains and thousands of supported assets
→ @Tangem > 80–100+ networks, 16,000+ tokens
→ @ELLIPAL Titan 2.0 > 40+ blockchains, 10,000+ tokens
→ @KeystoneWallet 3 Pro > multiple major blockchains
→ @BitBoxSwiss > Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and selected other assets
→ @SafePal S1 > 200+ claimed blockchains
so, which should you use?
65
8
102
9,024
ZORD retweeted
About $300B sits in stablecoins, while fixed income represents a market worth more than $160T.
@grvt_io wants to connect these two markets and give traders a way to earn yield while keeping their capital available for trading.
Here’s how it works ⬇️⬇️
—
● Stablecoins waiting you trade perps, you know how much capital you need to keep ready for the next opportunity. While you wait, your stablecoins may earn little or nothing.
If you move that capital into a yield product, you may need to withdraw it before you can trade again.
Institutions manage this through services such as prime brokerage.
@grvt_io wants to bring similar capital efficiency to everyday traders by connecting yield opportunities with their trading accounts.
—
● Earning yield without moving away from trading
GRVT Earn, planned for the end of October, aims to offer up to 11%
APY on eligible assets through tokenized fixed-income strategies.
Returns are expected to come from underlying cash flows, including interest, premiums and invoice payments.
These opportunities have traditionally been harder for everyday investors to access because of high minimum investments and other restrictions.
Tokenization can make them more accessible, although the underlying assets still carry risk.
The advertised 11% APY is a target, not a guaranteed return, and actual earnings will depend on the assets and market conditions.
The next step is planned for November, when eligible Earn balances are expected to become available as trading margin.
If implemented as planned, you could earn yield on their capital while using that same capital to support open positions.
—
● Where self-custody comes in
@grvt_io says users retain control of their funds through an account that only their own key can authorize to move funds.
The exchange also operates its own matching, settlement and risk infrastructure, giving it more control over how trading and yield products work together.
This setup gives users control over access to their funds, while smart contracts, market movements and the underlying assets still carry risks that traders need to understand.
—
● What GRVT has achieved so far
GRVT has already attracted attention for its exchange activity appearing among the top L2s by fees paid to Ethereum in Ethereum Daily’s seven-day ranking.
Meanwhile independent research has reported billions of dollars in trading volume and activity across its ZK-based settlement infrastructure.
The team has also completed its first buyback, purchasing and burning 1.1M $GRVT, close to 1% of circulating supply.
Further monthly buybacks are planned, although their size and timing remain at the issuer’s discretion.
—
● Making the same capital work harder
The idea behind GRVT 2.0, planned for the end of November, is to let traders earn on their capital while they wait for the next opportunity, then use eligible balances as margin when they decide to trade.
If the two products work together as intended, traders could have more flexibility in how they manage their money without constantly moving funds between separate services.
The real test will be adoption. Will traders keep their stablecoins in GRVT Earn, use those balances to back their positions, and continue doing so over time?
If they do, @grvt_io could offer a more efficient way to manage trading capital, connecting the income potential of fixed income with the flexibility of onchain markets.
@grvt_io wants to connect these two markets and give traders a way to earn yield while keeping their capital available for trading.
Here’s how it works ⬇️⬇️
—
● Stablecoins waiting you trade perps, you know how much capital you need to keep ready for the next opportunity. While you wait, your stablecoins may earn little or nothing.
If you move that capital into a yield product, you may need to withdraw it before you can trade again.
Institutions manage this through services such as prime brokerage.
@grvt_io wants to bring similar capital efficiency to everyday traders by connecting yield opportunities with their trading accounts.
—
● Earning yield without moving away from trading
GRVT Earn, planned for the end of October, aims to offer up to 11%
APY on eligible assets through tokenized fixed-income strategies.
Returns are expected to come from underlying cash flows, including interest, premiums and invoice payments.
These opportunities have traditionally been harder for everyday investors to access because of high minimum investments and other restrictions.
Tokenization can make them more accessible, although the underlying assets still carry risk.
The advertised 11% APY is a target, not a guaranteed return, and actual earnings will depend on the assets and market conditions.
The next step is planned for November, when eligible Earn balances are expected to become available as trading margin.
If implemented as planned, you could earn yield on their capital while using that same capital to support open positions.
—
● Where self-custody comes in
@grvt_io says users retain control of their funds through an account that only their own key can authorize to move funds.
The exchange also operates its own matching, settlement and risk infrastructure, giving it more control over how trading and yield products work together.
This setup gives users control over access to their funds, while smart contracts, market movements and the underlying assets still carry risks that traders need to understand.
—
● What GRVT has achieved so far
GRVT has already attracted attention for its exchange activity appearing among the top L2s by fees paid to Ethereum in Ethereum Daily’s seven-day ranking.
Meanwhile independent research has reported billions of dollars in trading volume and activity across its ZK-based settlement infrastructure.
The team has also completed its first buyback, purchasing and burning 1.1M $GRVT, close to 1% of circulating supply.
Further monthly buybacks are planned, although their size and timing remain at the issuer’s discretion.
—
● Making the same capital work harder
The idea behind GRVT 2.0, planned for the end of November, is to let traders earn on their capital while they wait for the next opportunity, then use eligible balances as margin when they decide to trade.
If the two products work together as intended, traders could have more flexibility in how they manage their money without constantly moving funds between separate services.
The real test will be adoption. Will traders keep their stablecoins in GRVT Earn, use those balances to back their positions, and continue doing so over time?
If they do, @grvt_io could offer a more efficient way to manage trading capital, connecting the income potential of fixed income with the flexibility of onchain markets.
99
9
187
5,599
ZORD retweeted
Robinhood’s real DeFi advantage may be distribution, not technology.
Robinhood Chain reportedly accounted for 53% of Uniswap’s September protocol revenue.
That’s a big number, but it doesn’t tell us which activity drove it.|
The model I’m watching is simple:
Broker users → trading → fees.
@RobinhoodCrypto Wallet gives eligible users access to Stock Tokens, with Uniswap among the execution venues.
That creates a route from familiar financial assets into onchain markets.
If that flow brings repeat traders, LPs have more reason to provide liquidity.
Better liquidity can improve execution and attract more trading.
But the loop only works if activity lasts beyond the initial launch.
A few projects I’m tracking across this ecosystem:
→ $UNI / @Uniswap: Does the revenue last, and does any of it translate into value for UNI holders?
→ @fablesfi: Uses Uniswap v4 pools with fees that adjust to stock-market hours and crypto volatility.
→ @TradePools & @ponsdotfamily: Both target token-launch activity, with PONS using Uniswap v3 and TradePools using v4.
This adds another source of trading, but speculative launches may produce very different liquidity patterns from tokenized stocks.
→ @Lighter_xyz / @Morpho: Lighter brings perps into the Robinhood Wallet ecosystem, while Morpho powers Robinhood Earn.
The key metrics are trading activity, lending demand and fees.
The 53% figure is a starting point, not proof that Robinhood users are driving Uniswap’s growth.
Robinhood can bring users onchain, but that alone doesn't guarantee lasting liquidity or value for every token in the ecosystem.
I’d be watching whether liquidity holds up, and if any of that growth creates real value for the tokens involved.
Robinhood Chain reportedly accounted for 53% of Uniswap’s September protocol revenue.
That’s a big number, but it doesn’t tell us which activity drove it.|
The model I’m watching is simple:
Broker users → trading → fees.
@RobinhoodCrypto Wallet gives eligible users access to Stock Tokens, with Uniswap among the execution venues.
That creates a route from familiar financial assets into onchain markets.
If that flow brings repeat traders, LPs have more reason to provide liquidity.
Better liquidity can improve execution and attract more trading.
But the loop only works if activity lasts beyond the initial launch.
A few projects I’m tracking across this ecosystem:
→ $UNI / @Uniswap: Does the revenue last, and does any of it translate into value for UNI holders?
→ @fablesfi: Uses Uniswap v4 pools with fees that adjust to stock-market hours and crypto volatility.
→ @TradePools & @ponsdotfamily: Both target token-launch activity, with PONS using Uniswap v3 and TradePools using v4.
This adds another source of trading, but speculative launches may produce very different liquidity patterns from tokenized stocks.
→ @Lighter_xyz / @Morpho: Lighter brings perps into the Robinhood Wallet ecosystem, while Morpho powers Robinhood Earn.
The key metrics are trading activity, lending demand and fees.
The 53% figure is a starting point, not proof that Robinhood users are driving Uniswap’s growth.
Robinhood can bring users onchain, but that alone doesn't guarantee lasting liquidity or value for every token in the ecosystem.
I’d be watching whether liquidity holds up, and if any of that growth creates real value for the tokens involved.
38
3
59
3,423
Where does the yield on your trading collateral actually come from?
I was going through @grvt_io's yield infrastructure, and there's an important distinction between its existing system and what's coming with Grvt 2.0.
Here's how it works:
➊ DeFi lending yield
$Grvt's Yield exchange reserves into Ethereum-based lending protocols, including Aave V3.
Rather than leaving those reserves inactive, the system generates lending returns while maintaining liquidity for trading and withdrawals.
➋ Tokenized fixed-income yield
Grvt Earn is designed to provide access to traditional fixed-income strategies, targeting up to 11% APY.
These returns are expected to come from underlying financial assets through interest payments, premiums and receivables.
Unlike promotional rewards, this introduces asset-backed income sources, although returns aren't guaranteed.
➌ What happens when you trade?
Grvt's planned Yield as Margin feature would allow eligible Earn balances to continue generating yield while supporting trading positions.
This doesn't eliminate trading or collateral risk. It changes how the same capital can be utilized.
The important distinction is that yield has an identifiable source, whether through DeFi lending or traditional fixed-income assets.
Understanding those sources, alongside liquidity and risk, is essential when evaluating any yield-bearing trading platform.
I was going through @grvt_io's yield infrastructure, and there's an important distinction between its existing system and what's coming with Grvt 2.0.
Here's how it works:
➊ DeFi lending yield
$Grvt's Yield exchange reserves into Ethereum-based lending protocols, including Aave V3.
Rather than leaving those reserves inactive, the system generates lending returns while maintaining liquidity for trading and withdrawals.
➋ Tokenized fixed-income yield
Grvt Earn is designed to provide access to traditional fixed-income strategies, targeting up to 11% APY.
These returns are expected to come from underlying financial assets through interest payments, premiums and receivables.
Unlike promotional rewards, this introduces asset-backed income sources, although returns aren't guaranteed.
➌ What happens when you trade?
Grvt's planned Yield as Margin feature would allow eligible Earn balances to continue generating yield while supporting trading positions.
This doesn't eliminate trading or collateral risk. It changes how the same capital can be utilized.
The important distinction is that yield has an identifiable source, whether through DeFi lending or traditional fixed-income assets.
Understanding those sources, alongside liquidity and risk, is essential when evaluating any yield-bearing trading platform.
Beyond the recent 1.1M $GRVT token burn, there's another reason I'm paying closer attention to @grvt_io.
The exchange is already handling substantial trading activity, and I think its infrastructure deserves more attention.
Grvt combines offchain order matching with ZK-powered aders to access centralized exchange-style execution while retaining self-custody and transaction privacy.
It also supports around 200 markets across crypto and traditional assets, with leverage of up to 50x.
Now consider the numbers from DefiLlama:
→ $509M in 24H perp volume
→ $14.65B in monthly volume
→ $441M in open interest
→ Over $441B in cumulative volume
→ ~$36M in TVL
Meanwhile, $GRVT has a circulating market cap of roughly $34M, compared with an FDV near $294M.
That valuation gap matters, particularly when considering future token supply.
But what makes me bullish on Grvt's product direction is its focus on capital efficiency.
Grvt already supports yield-generating margin, and its 2.0 roadmap aims to extend this through tokenized fixed-income products and yield as margin.
Essentially, users could keep eligible capital earning while using it to support trading positions.
My take: Grvt has demonstrated meaningful trading activity. The next opportunity is turning that activity into stronger capital retention and sustainable platform economics.
That's what makes Grvt 2.0 worth following beyond the token burn.
76
12
145
8,073
ZORD retweeted
Two tokenized stocks can track the same share price while offering very different legal rights, custody protections, and redemption access.
Even 1:1 backing doesn't guarantee holders own the underlying shares or can redeem them on demand.
So what actually separates these it down.
—
● The Infrastructure Behind Tokenized Stocks
Four layers connect traditional equities to onchain markets:
Traditional stock market -> Broker and custodian -> Issuer and legal structure -> Onchain token
Each layer serves a different purpose, making three distinctions important:
• Backing: Are the underlying shares actually held?
• Ownership: What legal rights does the token holder receive?
• Redemption: Can holders exchange tokens for cash or underlying shares?
A token can be fully backed without granting direct shareholder rights or unrestricted redemption.
Understanding this distinction starts with how shares become tradable tokens.
—
● How Tokenized Stocks Move From Shares to Redemption
The process generally follows four steps:
1. Acquire: The issuer or broker purchases and custodies the underlying shares.
2. Mint: Eligible participants complete KYC/AML checks before tokens are issued.
3. Trade: Tokens trade across supported CEXs or DEXs, depending on liquidity and restrictions.
4. Redeem: Eligible holders exchange tokens for cash, stablecoins or securities under the product's terms.
Importantly, holders have two potential exit routes:
• Secondary sale: Sell tokens to another buyer at the prevailing market price.
• Direct redemption: Return tokens to the issuer through its approved redemption process.
The distinction matters because selling requires market liquidity, while redemption requires issuer access.
—
● Tradable Doesn't Mean Redeemable
A token can remain freely tradable even when direct redemption is restricted by KYC/AML requirements, jurisdiction or wallet whitelisting.
Holders without redemption access must depend on secondary-market buyers to exit.
This creates another problem of limited arbitrage.
When eligible participants cannot freely mint or redeem, token prices can diverge from the underlying shares despite continued trading.
The result is that two products tracking the same stock can behave differently under market stress.
—
● Same Asset Exposure, Different Rights
Tokenized-stock providers use different legal and redemption structures.
• @xStocksFi: Supports cash redemption and an in-kind redemption route through xPort, subject to eligibility.
• @Ondo : Uses structured notes issued through a BVI SPV, with redemption governed by product terms.
• @RobinhoodApp: Offers Jersey-issued debt securities providing economic exposure rather than direct shareholder rights.
• @DinariGlobal: Redemption reportedly involves selling custodied shares and distributing proceeds to eligible holders.
• @MEXC: Lists third-party tokenized stocks alongside its separate RealStocks offering, without necessarily acting as issuer or custodian.
Although these products provide similar market exposure, their ownership claims, custody arrangements and redemption rights differ.
Current product terms remain essential for accurate comparisons.
—
● The Hidden Risk: Custody Concentration
Different issuers do not necessarily mean different custody arrangements.
Multiple tokenized-stock providers may depend on the same underlying broker or custodian.
This creates concentrated intermediary exposure, where holding several different tokens may provide less diversification than investors assume.
The next question is whether custody protections adequately address that risk.
—
● What Custody Protections Actually Cover
Several mechanisms aim to protect underlying assets, but they serve different purposes.
• Segregated accounts: Separate designated assets from others, subject to legal and insolvency rules.
• Security agents: May enforce collateral rights or liquidate assets under specified conditions.
• Proof of reserves: Verifies assets held at a particular moment, but doesn't establish unencumbered ownership or redemption rights.
None of these protections independently guarantees asset recovery if an issuer fails.
Their effectiveness ultimately depends on enforceable legal claims and the underlying custody structure.
—
● Redemption Access in Numbers
Reported industry data highlights the gap between token issuance and actual redemption access.
• ~880 tokenized-stock deployments reportedly existed as of August 2026.
• ~31 reportedly supported open issuer redemption, according to OnChain Benchmark.
• ~94% of tokenized US equity custody or clearing was reportedly linked to Alpaca Securities.
These figures require source verification, but they highlight two important questions: how widely redemption is available and how concentrated the underlying infrastructure has become.
—
● Where Stablecoins Fit Into the Picture
Stablecoins increasingly provide a settlement layer for tokenized financial assets, but their legal obligations remain distinct.
The GENIUS Act establishes rules covering payment stablecoin reserves, redemption and custody, with @USOCC involved in implementation.
While stablecoins can facilitate tokenized-stock settlement, stablecoin redemption rights do not extend automatically to the underlying equity tokens.
The reported January 18, 2027 effective date also requires confirmation against official OCC documentation before publication.
—
Tokenization makes equity exposure transferable onchain, but it doesn't eliminate the legal, custody and redemption structures supporting it.
As tokenized equities scale, adoption will depend on more than trading access or 1:1 backing.
The real test is whether holders can understand, exercise and enforce their rights when liquidity disappears or intermediaries fail.
Even 1:1 backing doesn't guarantee holders own the underlying shares or can redeem them on demand.
So what actually separates these it down.
—
● The Infrastructure Behind Tokenized Stocks
Four layers connect traditional equities to onchain markets:
Traditional stock market -> Broker and custodian -> Issuer and legal structure -> Onchain token
Each layer serves a different purpose, making three distinctions important:
• Backing: Are the underlying shares actually held?
• Ownership: What legal rights does the token holder receive?
• Redemption: Can holders exchange tokens for cash or underlying shares?
A token can be fully backed without granting direct shareholder rights or unrestricted redemption.
Understanding this distinction starts with how shares become tradable tokens.
—
● How Tokenized Stocks Move From Shares to Redemption
The process generally follows four steps:
1. Acquire: The issuer or broker purchases and custodies the underlying shares.
2. Mint: Eligible participants complete KYC/AML checks before tokens are issued.
3. Trade: Tokens trade across supported CEXs or DEXs, depending on liquidity and restrictions.
4. Redeem: Eligible holders exchange tokens for cash, stablecoins or securities under the product's terms.
Importantly, holders have two potential exit routes:
• Secondary sale: Sell tokens to another buyer at the prevailing market price.
• Direct redemption: Return tokens to the issuer through its approved redemption process.
The distinction matters because selling requires market liquidity, while redemption requires issuer access.
—
● Tradable Doesn't Mean Redeemable
A token can remain freely tradable even when direct redemption is restricted by KYC/AML requirements, jurisdiction or wallet whitelisting.
Holders without redemption access must depend on secondary-market buyers to exit.
This creates another problem of limited arbitrage.
When eligible participants cannot freely mint or redeem, token prices can diverge from the underlying shares despite continued trading.
The result is that two products tracking the same stock can behave differently under market stress.
—
● Same Asset Exposure, Different Rights
Tokenized-stock providers use different legal and redemption structures.
• @xStocksFi: Supports cash redemption and an in-kind redemption route through xPort, subject to eligibility.
• @Ondo : Uses structured notes issued through a BVI SPV, with redemption governed by product terms.
• @RobinhoodApp: Offers Jersey-issued debt securities providing economic exposure rather than direct shareholder rights.
• @DinariGlobal: Redemption reportedly involves selling custodied shares and distributing proceeds to eligible holders.
• @MEXC: Lists third-party tokenized stocks alongside its separate RealStocks offering, without necessarily acting as issuer or custodian.
Although these products provide similar market exposure, their ownership claims, custody arrangements and redemption rights differ.
Current product terms remain essential for accurate comparisons.
—
● The Hidden Risk: Custody Concentration
Different issuers do not necessarily mean different custody arrangements.
Multiple tokenized-stock providers may depend on the same underlying broker or custodian.
This creates concentrated intermediary exposure, where holding several different tokens may provide less diversification than investors assume.
The next question is whether custody protections adequately address that risk.
—
● What Custody Protections Actually Cover
Several mechanisms aim to protect underlying assets, but they serve different purposes.
• Segregated accounts: Separate designated assets from others, subject to legal and insolvency rules.
• Security agents: May enforce collateral rights or liquidate assets under specified conditions.
• Proof of reserves: Verifies assets held at a particular moment, but doesn't establish unencumbered ownership or redemption rights.
None of these protections independently guarantees asset recovery if an issuer fails.
Their effectiveness ultimately depends on enforceable legal claims and the underlying custody structure.
—
● Redemption Access in Numbers
Reported industry data highlights the gap between token issuance and actual redemption access.
• ~880 tokenized-stock deployments reportedly existed as of August 2026.
• ~31 reportedly supported open issuer redemption, according to OnChain Benchmark.
• ~94% of tokenized US equity custody or clearing was reportedly linked to Alpaca Securities.
These figures require source verification, but they highlight two important questions: how widely redemption is available and how concentrated the underlying infrastructure has become.
—
● Where Stablecoins Fit Into the Picture
Stablecoins increasingly provide a settlement layer for tokenized financial assets, but their legal obligations remain distinct.
The GENIUS Act establishes rules covering payment stablecoin reserves, redemption and custody, with @USOCC involved in implementation.
While stablecoins can facilitate tokenized-stock settlement, stablecoin redemption rights do not extend automatically to the underlying equity tokens.
The reported January 18, 2027 effective date also requires confirmation against official OCC documentation before publication.
—
Tokenization makes equity exposure transferable onchain, but it doesn't eliminate the legal, custody and redemption structures supporting it.
As tokenized equities scale, adoption will depend on more than trading access or 1:1 backing.
The real test is whether holders can understand, exercise and enforce their rights when liquidity disappears or intermediaries fail.
46
6
70
6,760