Remix.run Logo
▲ halflife 3 hours ago

I’m trying to understand what tokenized stocks actually mean. Where does the value come from? A stock is an actual percentage of a company’s ownership. A token of a stock is basically an NFT of a stock? The value is only from what other people are willing to pay for it?

▲SatvikBeri 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The mechanism is usually that you can exchange tokenized stocks for real stocks for some fee. That causes prices to be similar.

Another similar instrument is perpetuals, which are kept close to the price of the underlying by having people who hold long positions pay people who pay short positions, or vice versa, when the price deviates. (This is called funding.)

▲henry2023 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Company A will accept funds to buy some stock like MSFT, then they will mint a token i.e. xMSFT that you'll own in a blockchain ledger. You can trade this for whatever you want but the company promises to buy any token xMSFT at MSFT price whenever you want[1]. So the tokenized asset remains pegged as long as there's trust in the institution.

Also, the company will grow a balance sheet out of the funds created by the owners of the tokens and they frequently will give you some sort of yield on your position.

[1] Open Market hours and usually accompanied by a fee.

▲MisterMunchkin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So why not just buy the shares? The only possible reason to sell them is to allow yourself to print shares you don’t own and scam people.

▲jbm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not a crypto person, but is it a situation where one may have crypto and wants to invest it without converting it to USD/CAD/JPY/etc.. and paying taxes on it?

▲IanCal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Certainly in the UK, but probably in many places, conversion of any kind triggers capital gains tax.

▲nostrademons 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You still have to pay capital gains taxes on direct crypto->crypto transactions.

▲onefiftymike 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm assuming that, like most crypto, the benefits are for the exchange. They don't have to purchase any Microsoft stock. They can just sell virtual stock, invest the crypto in whatever they want, and only have to pay back when people actually want to sell it. And like the fractional reserve system, they hope that only a small fraction want out at any given time.

Microsoft loses because all of that investment activity does nothing to help their valuation, but the middlemen in the crypto market take their share on each transaction.

▲littlecranky67 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shares should simply just be tokens. Why do we have that complex systems where shares can only be traded by regulated entities (brokers) and only be traded during certain times? If a share is a token, the holder of the token will be entitled to the same rights such as dividends collection and voting in the shareholder meeting. No need for brokerage accounts, I can trade my shares 24/7 and transfer it to whomever I want. Paying 2-5$ fees on trades seem backwards this day and age.

▲orthogonal_cube an hour ago | parent [-]

> Why do we have that complex systems where shares can only be traded by regulated entities (brokers)

Because it safeguards against fraud and tax evasion.

> Paying 2-5$ fees on trades seem backwards this day and age.

Many brokerages don’t charge for buying or selling stock. They make their money elsewhere, likely with contracts on calls/puts. But to your point, having to pay a variable rate fee for moving my Ethereum from one wallet I own to another wallet I own also seems silly. I’m certain though that in both cases the charges cover the maintenance costs to keep the platform going. Everything comes at a cost.

▲littlecranky67 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

I didn't say anything about decentralized blockchain or anonymous tokens. We could have a kyc process and a single centralized blockchain run by the stock exchange, which only settles transactions to kyc customers - fraud prevention and tax evasion applies.

The real-time trading independent of brokerages, the free information flow of trading volume/direction etc. all benefits and a true, real free market. Right now we have mountain of unneeded intermediaries, that sit and cash in on the data and access.

▲RandomLensman 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

Would you expect exchanges to permit everyone to trade directly? How would you police the consequences of, for example, no entry policing? How would you want to police requirements if everyone is on the exchange or some venue (e.g., around algorithms)?

But complexities of any new system aside, what is an example of a cashing in of an unneeded example in terms of an activity?

▲littlecranky67 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

You public key is registered with a kyc progress. Transactions (transfer of shares) is only settled when all parties have a kyc-verified key. Again, centralized chain (proof of authority). Any and all transactions can be reversed and changed by the regulator if needed. The main difference over today is, you have a open, access-to-all (after kyc) and no intermediaries.

Examples for cashing in: payment for order flow (was recently banned in the EU). They litterally sold their trading data of retail clients for money.

Not sure how you think brokers make money, but they get kickbacks from market makers and fund providers, or simply higher spreads. No one works for free.

▲RandomLensman 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

You want transactions to be easily reversible?

Payment for order: what data was sold (or do you mean the orders as data)?

You mean broker as in a pure broker, not broker-dealer?

What about policing algorithms, for example? Who'd do that and how?

Who provides liquidity? Just natural supply and demand?

▲cgio 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Minor benefits around clearing and settlement, but these allow for 24/7 even if the clearing house is not so. On the other hand, I don’t see how they should be able to block it. It is a derivative product, can MSFT block e.g. puts on its stock? Stock ownership gives rights, not obligations.

▲IanCal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The other thing would be using it in any other automated whatever that accepts tokens with the same interface. Loans, escrow, trades, whatever it is that someone has built.

There's a lot of technical and other issues with blockchains, but framed as "a single shared database that allows stored procedures and shared data types, with no central owner" I'd hope devs here could see something interesting to mess about with there. If it wasn't for the fact that "a currency" is absurdly easy to make and then there was a lot of quick money to be made or lost, I think it'd be liked more as an odd shared network.

If nothing else, there's some interesting programming challenges involved given the compute limits.

▲jgilias 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s many countries around the globe where buying US shares is either impossible or prohibitively expensive. Also composability in DeFi protocols.

For the issuer, same playbook on how stables issuers print money - you get cash that you can put into treasuries to earn “free” yield on. Works as long as rates aren’t zero.

▲spwa4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because you're under sanctions? Because you're really investing drug money? Because ...

I say that so definitive because there is no reason at all to do this other than avoiding the existing banking system.

▲DANmode 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are paper certificates for shares no longer used?

▲halflife 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah I understand, so it’s backed by an actual stock, and you just trust the broker to not liquidate and leave you with nothing.

But what is the crypto value here? Why not just a database row?

▲mahboi 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I guess because it's easier to trade USDT for stock tokens in an Ethereum contract. Same reason USDT is on the blockchain and not just a database run by its owners, who are already centralized of course.

There are also a lot of examples of contracts with some centralization that would appear to remove the entire point of using a blockchain, but they're simple enough that the blockchain is actually easier than hosting their own API, dealing with auth, keeping ddos and hackers out, etc.

▲halflife 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I’m pretty sure a database row backed by an app is much easier than handling crypto.

And decentralization here doesn’t mean a lot when you need to trust the broker with real stocks backing.

▲mahboi 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

Database by itself is easy, but the rest of a public-facing exchange would be serious work mainly because of the security implications. I've seen contracts for blockchain exchanges, they're not that complicated. Once they set that up, they don't have to host anything publicly, or very little. The orders are typically matched off-chain, but their backend just talks to the chain, not end users.

▲ReptileMan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Because with a database row you don't risk having SEC suing you into oblivion.

Blockchain tokenization is only for high risk negative reward people.

▲MatthiasPortzel 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/01/19/nyse-to-launch-2...

Sounds like the “blockchain” part of this is marketing, since it’s on a private blockchain controlled by the exchange. The real selling point is 24/7 trading.

▲nwah1 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

So, a very inefficient database with massive footguns.

▲chrisco255 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Value comes from the underlying. Of course you are carrying some intermediary risk but that's also inherent with stock brokers as well. Similar to a stablecoin backed by treasuries. Voting isn't the only value of holding stock, although some platforms have proposed passing through to token holders voting and dividend distributions as well.

One of the primary benefits for traders is 24/7 liquidity and the ability to plug the token into other products onchain, like lending markets.

▲warkdarrior 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Of course you are carrying some intermediary risk but that's also inherent with stock brokers as well.

Stock broker customers have SIPC to reduce risk. Is there an equivalent entity for the crypto token space?

▲saghm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The value is only from what other people are willing to pay for it?

Somehow every time I try to make this argument about stock buybacks, some people vigorously defend them as not just somehow a glorified Ponzi scheme.

▲nostrademons 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why would you see them as a Ponzi scheme?

The cash for buybacks comes from company operations, which they give to investors in exchange for destroying the outstanding security. The cash for Ponzi schemes comes from other investors, which they receive in exchange for issuing more securities and use to fund investors who want to cash out. They are in many ways opposites.

▲throw-qqqqq 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The value of stock buybacks come from lowering shares in circulation. Fewer shares means that shareholders have to share profits with fewer, leading to larger profits or dividends per share.

How do you see that as a Ponzi scheme?

▲saghm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I see it as a Ponzi scheme when people argue that they're a replacement for dividends. You're describing them as if dividends are an assumption, in which case they're perfectly reasonable.

▲throw-qqqqq 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even for companies that do not pay dividends, buybacks should increase the value of each share, because you share profits with fewer other shareholders.

Buybacks raise the EPS/earning-per-share by lowering the denominator (number of outstanding shares).

EDIT:

If P/E stays the same, but the E (earnings) grows, the P (price) has to grow too.

I think it’s quite uncontroversial to equate buybacks with dividends. Personally, I prefer dividends, even if they’re suboptimal tax-wise.

▲wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think buybacks are really the thing here. The question is why a stock would have value if it doesn't pay dividends. If there's a good reason for that then buybacks are perfectly sensible. If there isn't then such companies are engaged in some sort of weird scheme regardless of buybacks.

▲neutronicus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're currently a replacement for dividends because dividends are less tax-efficient than stock buybacks.

I struggle with the same initial impression as you, and have reached an uneasy peace with the status quo by telling myself that the stock price is about the amount of dividends the company could issue in a dividend-friendlier tax environment, once its growth plateaus and it goes into cash-cow mode.