According to a Bloomberg Law report on Monday, the U.S. SEC could unveil its “Innovation Exemption” framework for tokenized stocks as early as this week.
The real explosive point is hidden within one of the draft opinions: allowing the trading of tokens that have not received consent from the listed company itself.
To put it simply: Tesla, Apple, Nvidia — as long as they are listed on U.S. stock exchanges, they could potentially have their shares issued and traded on a blockchain in the form of “tokenized TSLA” without being informed or consulted. Their legal departments can of course issue disclaimers, but after that? Trading would likely proceed as usual.
Rewind to 11 Months Ago
To understand the significance of this news, we need to go back to the drama in July 2025.
Robinhood announced “Stock 代幣s” for EU users at Cannes, enabling over 200 U.S. listed companies to be traded on-chain 24/7. Vlad Tenev spoke confidently on stage until he dropped the real bombshell: a giveaway of tokens representing shares in two private companies, OpenAI and SpaceX, totaling $1.5 million.
The next day, OpenAI slammed Robinhood on X: “These ‘OpenAI Tokens’ are not OpenAI equity. We have not collaborated, participated, or endorsed this. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval — and we have not approved any transfers. Please be cautious.”
Robinhood’s explanation was awkward: these tokens are pegged to an SPV holding OpenAI stock, essentially a “derivative.” The Central Bank of Lithuania, Robinhood’s primary regulator in the EU, subsequently sent a letter demanding an explanation of the structure’s legality.
The core question of that storm was: When a company explicitly opposes it, can a third party create derivatives based on that company’s equity?
In the court of public opinion last July, most believed Robinhood’s move was unsightly. Now, 11 months later, the SEC’s answer might be: Yes, and we will license you to do it.
The SEC’s Logical Chain: Long in the Making
It’s been a year since Paul Atkins took over as SEC Chair, and every action he has taken points to this moment.
On April 21, Atkins spoke plainly at the Economic Club of Washington: the SEC is about to launch an “Innovation Exemption,” a 12 to 36-month regulatory sandbox allowing tokenized securities to trade on-chain without full registration, subject to trading volume caps, whitelists, and periodic reporting.
A more critical foreshadowing was a legal memorandum submitted to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force on January 22, which explicitly outlined three models for tokenized US stocks:
- Direct Issuance Model: The issuer records equity on-chain, requiring the issuer’s consent.
- Custodial Receipt Model: A third-party custodian freezes existing shares and issues corresponding digital certificates on-chain. This does not require the issuer’s consent because the underlying securities remain in their original form.
- Synthetic Model: Tracks the stock price using derivative contracts. This does not require the issuer’s consent, as the token and the underlying security are independent.
The SEC’s current inclination essentially acknowledges the legality of the latter two models. The “good student” approach, favored by firms like Galaxy and Superstate that collaborate with issuers beforehand, will now compete on the same playing field as Robinhood’s “act now, explain later” method.
Regulatory arbitrageurs will welcome this outcome. CFOs of listed companies, however, will likely need to hold urgent meetings.
Who’s Happy, Who’s Not?
Those who will be smiling:
- On-chain brokerages and DEXs. Robinhood no longer needs to justify itself over last year’s OpenAI PR crisis. The model it was criticized for will soon be compliant.
- DeFi infrastructure. If tokenized US stocks can truly trade on AMMs, it would effectively move a portion of Nasdaq’s liquidity alongside Uniswap and Curve.
- Protocols that have early positions in the RWA sector. Ondo, Backed, Securitize, and others have been waiting for precisely this regulatory document.
- Global retail investors. The U.S. market would open up from 6.5 hours a day to 24/7.
Those who will be frowning:
- Listed companies – this is the trickiest category. If a company’s stock is tokenized without its consent and beyond its control, it creates a “shadow market.” If price differences emerge between the on-chain token and the official stock, or if on-chain trading triggers complex governance or shareholder activism issues, these problems will eventually land on the desks of IR and legal departments, who lack veto power over the process.
- Traditional brokers and clearing houses. The implicit logic of tokenization is that the DTCC can be bypassed.
- Conservative factions within the SEC. Hester Peirce famously said last July: “Tokenized securities are still securities.” She supports tokenization but opposes using it to circumvent substantive investor protection. This “no issuer consent required” aspect will become a flashpoint for internal SEC debate.
Key Questions Worth Asking
The biggest allure of tokenized stocks has always been “what you can do with them on-chain”: use them as collateral, combine them, frictionlessly integrate them with other assets in a stablecoin pool, and re-package them countless times in DeFi.
However, if the SEC’s exemption framework strictly limits trading to whitelisted parties, imposes volume caps, and mandates KYC thresholds, the DeFi composability aspect will be significantly hampered. An “on-chain stock market” constrained by such rules is entirely different from a 24/7, globally accessible, and truly DeFi-integrated version.
Until the official document is released, several details will determine the final outcome:
- Is the whitelist limited to U.S. accredited investors only, or open to retail investors?
- Is there cross-border regulatory coordination? Will tokenized stocks under the EU’s MiCA framework face regulatory conflicts with those under the U.S. Innovation Exemption?
- If a listed company files a lawsuit, will the SEC’s exemption provide legal protection for third-party issuers?
- After the 12-36 month sandbox period, will the framework become permanent or be shut down?
Historically, the venue, time, and method of trading a company’s stock were core rights held by the issuer and the exchange. With this step, the SEC is partially removing the “right to decide how a stock is traded” from the hands of the issuer.
Last year, Robinhood was ridiculed in Europe for getting ahead of the rules. Now, the SEC is changing the rules.
This is the most significant financial infrastructure change to watch in 2026. The launch of a new public chain or a DeFi protocol breaking its TVL record pales in comparison to the gravity of this event: the world’s largest asset class is beginning its official migration on-chain. The U.S. stock market itself is the protagonist of this migration, and the keys to the migration are no longer entirely controlled by those being migrated.
As for whether tokenized stocks are fundamentally a good business? Frankly, the story has been told for five years, yet real liquidity remains scarce. But when the SEC removes the final legal barrier, it warrants a fresh look.
After all, the trading paradigm that Nasdaq took 50 years to build might be rewritten on-chain within the next three years.
Worth watching.
本文源自網路： SEC Licenses “On-Chain Stocks”: Listed Companies No Longer Have Veto Power
Author｜Wenser (@wenser 2010) As tensions in the Middle East continue, a security breach exceeding $200 million has delivered another heavy blow to the 加密貨幣 space. On April Fool’s Day, April 1st, Drift Protocol, a leading derivatives protocol on Solana, played what might be the least funny “joke” on everyone: just one week after updating to a multi-signature wallet requiring only 2 out of 5 signatures and without a timelock, over $280 million worth of JLP-related assets were stolen. This inevitably raises suspicions of an inside job. In the latest development, Drift officially confirmed an active attack and has suspended all deposits and withdrawals across the platform. Some potentially affected projects have explicitly stated, “This is not an April Fool’s joke.” A statement that sounds like a joke may, in fact,…
繁體中文 
English 
简体中文 
日本語 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
한국어 
Bahasa Indonesia 
हिन्दी 
اردو 
Русский