Crypto platforms bet on U.S. stocks, the real controversy lies in the way

Crypto platforms compete to provide trading in U.S. stocks: From novelty to structural shift

Crypto platforms competing to provide trading in U.S. stocks is no longer just a pursuit of novelty. Behind this trend is the weakening of the wealth effect of cryptocurrencies and the structural shift in markets seeking assets with stronger fundamentals. However, beyond the headlines, a key disagreement is forming: Are users buying tokenized price exposure or holding actual stocks with dividends, voting rights and regulatory guarantees? In a conversation with Elio Cui, head of BIT's brokerage business, he explained why this distinction is important and how it heralds the next era of cryptofinance.

Why exchanges chase U.S. stocks

Cui pointed out three forces driving the platform towards the stock market. First, the wealth effect that once greatly boosted crypto trading volume has cooled. Liquidity is migrating and platforms need new magnets to retain user funds. Second, U.S. stocks with high certainty-particularly in artificial intelligence and commercial aerospace-provide a narrative based on productivity growth rather than mere speculation. For a generation of traders accustomed to chasing themes, these stocks are the natural next frontier. Third, the past model of relying solely on high-frequency crypto transactions to achieve growth no longer provides the same room for growth. Brokers and asset management companies have been forced to rethink how to provide asset access, moving away from purely crypto menus and towards multi-asset portfolios.

This shift is also a defensive move. Platforms become more sticky when users can configure Nvidia or SpaceX-related assets within a familiar interface without leaving the crypto ecosystem. The question is not whether to provide stocks, but how to provide them.

Tokenized exposure and direct ownership

Many exchanges initially entered the equity space through tokenized stocks, CFDs, or synthetic products. These instruments replicate price movements but do not require actual delivery or custody of the underlying securities. For platforms, they integrate well into existing order-book-and market-maker-based trading engines and revenue structures. But as Cui points out, this model has a hard ceiling. Liquidity is shallow, prices may deviate from the reference market, and users end up holding a derivative claim rather than a real asset. If something goes wrong with the issuer, investors may be left with contractual claims rather than legally quarantined securities.

When BIT launched U.S. stock trading in February, it chose a heavier path: direct brokerage access and holding real assets. This means that transactions are settled through U.S. clearing brokers, dividends flow to customers, and assets are placed within a regulatory framework that separates customers 'assets from the platform's balance sheet. This approach is slower to build-requires licenses, broker relationships, KYC/AML pipelines, and tax infrastructure-but it provides something that the tokenization model cannot give: ownership, not just price indicia. Even though the broader market for tokenized real-world assets (RWA) has exceeded $20 billion on the chain, tokenized stocks remain a niche precisely because investors are reluctant to accept imperfect pricing and ambiguous asset rights.

Hidden costs of compliance, custody and real access

Behind the seemingly simple operation of users purchasing U.S. stocks with stablecoins is a complex compliance architecture. BIT is routed through a licensed entity (located in Bhutan) that connects to U.S. brokers responsible for execution, clearing and custody. Adopt a comprehensive account structure that retains customer information within the licensed entity, while transaction execution, asset isolation and settlement are conducted within the U.S. regulatory framework. Cui explained that most of its customers 'cash exposure and securities end up in the U.S. clearing system rather than on the platform's own books.

This arrangement also involves the conversion layer of fiat and stablecoins, which incurs costs of 0.06% to 0.2%, which are charged by licensed over-the-counter trading providers. Although the cost is not high, it reminds us that there is a real operational friction between connecting crypto and traditional finance. Infrastructure investment is huge, small platforms are difficult to build, and large exchanges may be reluctant to encroach on already effective trading models. The compliance advance comes as U.S. lawmakers and banking interests are engaged in a tug-of-war over a landmark crypto bill that encountered last-minute opposition ahead of a Senate vote, highlighting the uncertain regulatory background faced by any platform operating across jurisdictions.

Investor mentality and the aftermath of the bubble

Cui's observations point to a broader psychological shift among crypto native users. Traditional equity investors tend to evaluate assets based on cash flow, growth trajectory and corporate governance-a longer-term perspective. In contrast, encryption users are accustomed to chasing narratives, staring at the market, and using leverage to gain amplified returns. Since the launch of its U.S. stock business, BIT has recorded almost no net outflows, indicating that capital is not just temporarily staying, but is accumulating. The move is more than just a product addition; it reflects what Cui describes as an industry phenomenon: the industry is gradually adopting value investing logic as the easy growth of past cycles fades.

BIT's own rebranding in 2026-changing its name from Matrixport to BIT-also confirms this shift. The platform, which started out as a crypto-asset management company, now positions itself as a global financial services bridge, connecting stablecoins on the chain with regulated brokers off the chain. This shows that the boundary between crypto and traditional finance is gradually blurred not only in terms of slogans, but also at the infrastructure level. For investors who have experienced multiple bull-bear cycles, the practical lesson is straightforward: holding concentrated positions in core assets for a long time often outweighs the emotional cost of frequent trading, even if it lacks the adrenaline boost of a ten-fold increase.