Finance vs. the Crypto Industry: The ‘Public vs. Permissioned’ Battle Over the Rails of Tokenized Stocks

-

3-Point Summary

  • The core conflict is between traditional finance’s preference for permissioned blockchains and the crypto industry’s push for open public blockchain rails.
  • Tokenized stocks highlight a fundamental divide: regulated, institution‑controlled infrastructure vs. open, globally accessible on-chain liquidity.
  • The choice between public and permissioned rails will determine who shapes the future standard of financial infrastructure.
CLARITY Act vs Coinbase Conflict Image

A defining clash between the CLARITY Act’s traditional regulatory approach and Coinbase’s push for on‑chain finance, shaping the future of tokenized markets.

50-Second Shorts Video

Watch the 50-second video to see how tokenized stocks are reshaping the battle between public and permissioned blockchains before diving into the full analysis below.

Introduction: Why Tokenized Stocks Matter Now

The defining keyword of the digital asset market in 2026 is undoubtedly tokenization. As traditional financial assets—stocks, bonds, real estate, and funds—begin moving on-chain at scale, the central question has become: who will set the rules for this new financial infrastructure?

At the center of this debate is the CLARITY Act, a pivotal bill that will shape the direction of U.S. digital asset regulation. The Act directly conflicts with Coinbase’s vision for an on-chain superapp, as it strictly defines the blockchain rails on which tokenized stocks may operate.

The core issue is whether tokenized stocks should run on permissioned blockchain networks operated by regulated financial institutions, or on public blockchains like Ethereum and Solana.

  • The CLARITY Act allows trading of tokenized stocks only on permissioned blockchains operated by regulated financial institutions, explicitly prohibiting free transfers or swaps on public blockchains.
  • Coinbase, on the other hand, envisions tokenized stocks moving freely on public blockchains with open liquidity and global accessibility.

Ultimately, the future of tokenized stocks hinges on a battle between a closed, institution‑controlled on-chain infrastructure and an open, public blockchain–based global liquidity network.

This article compares three key areas:

  1. The tokenized stock model defined by the CLARITY Act
  2. The on-chain stock model envisioned by Coinbase
  3. Why these two models fundamentally collide

1. Tokenized Stock Issuance Under the CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act treats tokenized stocks as digital versions of traditional securities. Even when moved on-chain, they remain fully subject to existing securities regulations.

  • Issuer (the original company) approval required
  • SEC registration, disclosures, and audits required
  • Issuance only by registered broker‑dealers or financial institutions
  • Tokens classified as legal securities

Summary: “Digital securities with the same rules as traditional stocks.”

2. Tokenized Stock Trading Under the CLARITY Act

Trading is restricted to regulated financial environments.

  • Trading allowed only on permissioned blockchains operated by regulated financial institutions
  • No free transfers or swaps on public blockchains like Ethereum or Solana
  • KYC/AML required
  • Wallet‑to‑wallet transfers restricted
  • Dividends, voting rights, and corporate actions follow traditional rules

Summary: “On‑chain trading allowed, but free movement is not.”

3. Coinbase’s Vision for Tokenized Stock Issuance

Coinbase aims to build an open, on-chain global asset market with minimal reliance on traditional financial regulation.

  • No issuer approval required
  • No SEC registration for on-chain stock issuance
  • Issuance by Coinbase or partner entities
  • Tokens treated as on-chain assets, not securities

Summary: “A Web3-style market where anyone can issue on-chain stocks.”

4. Coinbase’s Vision for Tokenized Stock Trading

Coinbase imagines a world where stocks move like crypto assets on public blockchains.

  • 24/7 global trading
  • Instant stock ↔ crypto swaps
  • Free wallet‑to‑wallet transfers
  • Trading through on-chain liquidity pools
  • Instant settlement (finality)

Summary: “Stocks move freely between wallets and trade like crypto.”

5. Why Coinbase’s Model Conflicts With Traditional Finance

The core issue is that on-chain ownership does not equal legal ownership under traditional financial law.

Traditional Finance: Centralized Ownership Records

Legal ownership is determined by centralized registries maintained by transfer agents, the DTCC, and the issuing company. In other words, the legal shareholder is defined off-chain.

Coinbase’s Model: Only the On-Chain Ledger Changes

When tokens move between wallets, only the on-chain record changes. The official shareholder registry does not.

Thus, on-chain holder ≠ legal shareholder.

Coinbase or its partners retain legal ownership of the underlying stock, while users hold only a tokenized representation—not legal shares.

Why Regulators Object

  • Companies cannot identify their real shareholders
  • Voting rights and dividend systems break down
  • Stocks move like crypto without AML/KYC controls
  • Potential to bypass securities regulation entirely

Summary: “Because the legal shareholder registry does not change, Coinbase’s model conflicts with securities law.”

Conclusion

The conflict between the traditional financial sector and the crypto industry is not a simple regulatory disagreement. It is a structural battle over who will define the standard for future financial infrastructure.

  • Traditional Finance: Prefers permissioned blockchains that preserve existing regulatory frameworks
  • Crypto Industry: Favors open, public blockchain rails that enable free asset movement and global on-chain liquidity

With fundamentally different philosophies, technologies, and regulatory frameworks, a clash between the two models is inevitable.

As tokenized stocks become a core asset class in future markets, the choice between public and permissioned rails will play a decisive role in shaping the future financial order.

Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.

If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.

댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance

-
이미지
Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance In 2026, the global financial system is undergoing a profound transformation—quiet on the surface, but seismic underneath. At the center of this shift is Ethereum . Once viewed simply as a smart‑contract platform, Ethereum has now become the settlement and liquidity backbone of global finance, reshaping the very structure of how money and assets move. How Ethereum Became the Foundation of Global Finance Stablecoin payments and real‑world asset tokenization (RWA) are expanding faster than ever. What’s striking is that this movement is no longer led by crypto startups. Instead, Visa, Stripe, PayPal, JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Fidelity —the world’s largest financial institutions—are building new financial infrastructure directly on Ethereum. Recent on‑chain data highlights the scale of this shift: Tokenized funds: 31,300 holders Tokenized equities: 21,000 holders Tokenized commodities: 116,...
자세한 내용 보기

The Real Reason the CLARITY Act Stalled: A USDC Yield War Between Coinbase and the Banks

-
이미지
3-Point Summary The CLARITY Act stalled not because of regulators, but due to internal industry conflict. The core battle centers on whether stablecoins like USDC should be allowed to generate yield. Coinbase’s opposition to a yield ban significantly weakened political momentum for the bill. The CLARITY Act stalled because the industry itself couldn’t agree on who controls the economics of digital dollars. 50-Second Shorts Video '" style="cursor: pointer; position: relative; width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 1/1; border-radius: 8px; overflow: hidden;"> Watch the 50-second video to understand why the CLARITY Act stalled before diving into the full analysis below. Why the CLARITY Act Stalled: Not Regulation, but an Internal War 1) What the CLARITY Act Was Trying to Do The CLARITY Act is ...
자세한 내용 보기

비트코인은 자산, 이더리움은 인프라: 기관이 다시 짜는 글로벌 금융의 판도

-
이미지
비트코인과 이더리움—같은 기관 채택, 완전히 다른 두 개의 트랙 기관들의 암호자산 채택 속도가 눈에 띄게 빨라지고 있다. 하지만 이 흐름 속에서 비트코인과 이더리움이 맡고 있는 역할은 근본적으로 다르다. 비트코인은 기관의 포트폴리오에 편입되는 ‘보유 자산’ 으로 자리 잡고 있고, 이더리움은 글로벌 금융 시스템이 다시 구축되는 ‘운영 인프라’ 로 기능하고 있다. 이 둘은 경쟁 관계가 아니라, 새로운 금융 아키텍처를 구성하는 두 개의 기둥이다. 1. 비트코인: 기관이 ‘보유하는 자산’ 최근 블랙록이 단 10거래일 만에 17,645 BTC(약 11억 6천만 달러) 를 매수한 사실은 시장의 시선을 사로잡았다. 이는 채굴자들이 생산하는 속도보다 더 빠르게 비트코인을 흡수하는 수준이다. 기관들이 비트코인을 반드시 보유해야 하는 자산 으로 인식하고 있다는 강력한 신호다. 비트코인이 기관 포트폴리오에서 차지하는 의미는 명확하다. ETF 운영을 위한 재고 확보 블랙록의 IBIT 현물 ETF는 투자자 수요를 충족하기 위해 대량의 BTC를 보유해야 한다. 기관 고객에게 제공하는 규제된 비트코인 접근성 연기금, 보험사, 국부펀드 등은 직접 보관 리스크 없이 비트코인에 노출되기를 원한다. 디지털 금으로서의 포지셔닝 래리 핑크는 비트코인을 글로벌 거시 자산, 가치 저장 수단, 인플레이션 헤지로 규정해 왔다. 장기적 희소성에 대한 선제적 대응 블랙록의 공격적 매수는 희소 자산을 조기에 확보하려는 전형적인 기관 전략이다. 결국 비트코인은 금고에 보관되는 자산 , 즉 디지털 금이다. 기관은 비트코인을 ‘운영’하지 않는다. 보유한다. 2. 이더리움: 금융 자산이 실제로 ‘움직이는 인프라’ 이더리움은 완전히 다른 질문에 답한다. “금융 자산은 어디에서 발행되고, 이동하고, 결제되고, 운영될 것인가?” 기관들은 ETH를 단순히 사들이는 것이 아니라, 이더리움 위에 금융 시스템을 구축하고 있다. 대표적인 사례는 다음과 같다. JP Morgan — Onyx, JPM Co...
자세한 내용 보기