Global listing, 24-hour stock trading? An analysis of the NYSE's on-chain "conspiracy"

This move not only attempts to eliminate the "IPO time difference" between Wall Street and the crypto world but also, with its over $2.5 billion in assets under management and $9 billion in cumulative trading volume, showcases its ambition to transform from "intermediaries" to "digital underwriters."

However, no matter how high-profile or transformative Ondo may be, it is merely a "downstream breakthrough" initiated by crypto-native protocols. The real limit to the tokenization wave in the U.S. stock market is still determined by traditional infrastructure giants. On January 19, 2026, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) officially announced that it is developing a platform for tokenized securities trading and on-chain settlement, and will seek the necessary approvals from regulators for this platform. This news sparked considerable discussion in both traditional finance and the crypto industry, but most people simplified it to one sentence—"The NYSE is going to tokenize U.S. stocks." While this statement is certainly correct, it is far from sufficient. If this matter is simply understood as "stocks on-chain" or "traditional finance moving towards Web3," the essence has not been grasped. The NYSE's move is actually a well-considered institutional revolution.

Crypto Salad hopes to start from this news itself to comprehensively and systematically sort out the current development process of U.S. stock market tokenization. This article serves as the opening of a series, and we will specifically discuss what this significant news entails and what impact it will have on the entire traditional U.S. stock industry.

I. What exactly did the NYSE news say?

From the information provided by the NYSE's official announcement, it is clear that the NYSE is not merely labeling stocks as "tokens." Its core focus is not on a specific product but on the complete disassembly and reconstruction of the entire securities trading system. Among these, we have identified four core transformations, outlined as follows:

(1) 7×24 Hour Trading

7×24 hour trading is a core distinction between the crypto financial market and the traditional financial market that has been discussed for a long time. However, the NYSE's mention of 7×24 hour trading is not simply about extending trading hours; it explicitly focuses on "post-trade infrastructure." What it aims to create is a new digital platform that combines the existing matching engine (Pillar) with a blockchain-based post-trade system, thereby enabling the "trading, settlement, and custody" chain to operate continuously. In simple terms, the NYSE wants to create new technologies and institutional arrangements that allow the settlement system itself to adapt to continuous operation.

The reason traditional securities markets have long adhered to fixed trading hours is primarily due to various processes in the workflow, such as settlement and fund allocation, which heavily rely on bank operating hours and clearing windows. The NYSE proposes to use on-chain or tokenized financial instruments to cover "funding gaps during non-business hours," thereby activating the "night/weekend" market closure times.

Whether all-day trading is good or bad for financial markets and retail investors should be considered cautiously, according to Crypto Salad. However, for the U.S. stock market itself, the benefits certainly outweigh the drawbacks. After all, as the world's core asset pool, if U.S. stock trading hours remain fixed locally, it cannot further become a more globalized asset liquidity base.

(2) Instant Settlement with Stablecoins

As mentioned earlier, the NYSE hopes to extend trading hours through new "on-chain or tokenized financial instruments." One of the core tools for this is the settlement tool.

The NYSE's official press release uses the terms "instant settlement" and "stablecoin-based funding," and clearly states that the platform will use a "blockchain post-trade system" to achieve on-chain settlement. Here, we need to grasp two key points:

• First, the NYSE is not proposing the basic idea of "buying stocks with stablecoins," but rather hopes that stablecoins can become tools for settlement and margin management.

• Second, the meaning of "instant settlement" is to evolve the delivery from the traditional T+1 to near real-time trading.

The most direct effect of this is to avoid various risks arising from the time difference between trading and settlement. The NYSE specifically mentioned that it is collaborating with BNY and Citi to promote "tokenized deposits," aiming to allow clearing members to transfer and manage funds during non-business hours, meet margin requirements, and cover cross-time zone and cross-jurisdiction funding needs.

(3) Fractional Share Trading

Having discussed the innovation in trading infrastructure, let's talk about the biggest benefit that this innovation can bring (for non-U.S. investors).

The narrative of U.S. stock market tokenization has developed to this point, and we have analyzed the benefits and risks of fractional shares many times. However, this time, the NYSE's news should be considered the first official mention of the concept of "fractional share trading." The news states that the platform hopes to change the trading unit from the traditional "1 share" to a unit that is closer to "asset allocation by amount." One share of Tesla is currently valued at $400, which small retail investors cannot afford, but if they could buy 0.025 shares of Tesla for $10 on the new platform, wouldn't that be very appealing?

Of course, making retail investors with average investment power happy is certainly not the NYSE's primary goal. The NYSE is redefining the minimum tradable unit of securities to adapt to the granularity of tokenization and on-chain settlement.

The implications of this move are quite significant. First, the methods of market making and liquidity supply will undergo tremendous changes, as liquidity will no longer revolve solely around the depth of whole shares but will be rebuilt around other standards (such as amount). Second, when the platform allows "tokenized stocks and traditional securities to be interchangeable," fractional shares make it easier for different forms of the same asset to be settled, exchanged, and connected across different systems. This may sound abstract, but it can be simply likened to breaking down large bills into change and standardizing the currency for use in different stores.

In this structural adjustment, the meaning of fractional share trading is also redefined. For a long time, fractional shares have often been seen as a "convenience feature" for retail investors, but in this context, it resembles a prerequisite at the level of financial engineering. Only when assets can be standardized and split can they possess further combinability, routability, and programmability, and be incorporated into automated clearing and on-chain settlement systems. In other words, fractional shares are not meant to "make it affordable for more people," but to provide the technical foundation for the digital circulation of assets.

(4) Native Issuance of Digital Securities

Regarding the concept of "native digital securities," the NYSE has also provided very clear boundaries. Its goal is not to simply map existing stocks as on-chain certificates like Nasdaq, but to explore a form of securities that operates entirely on-chain from the point of rights confirmation.

This means that dividends, voting rights, and corporate governance mechanisms are not patched together through off-chain rules but are directly embedded within the lifecycle of digital securities. This is not a technical upgrade in packaging but a redefinition of the existence of securities.

Once native issuance is allowed, it means that the rights confirmation, shareholder registry logic, company dividends, voting, governance, and custody and transfer restrictions of securities must all be redesigned. At the same time, a more attractive point is that the NYSE limits the distribution channels to qualified broker-dealers, which is a preemptive answer to the core question regulators will ask: this is not a "wild token market" for retail investors to freely mint and circulate, but rather retains order, thresholds, and management.

II. Why Now?

Why now? Why is the NYSE proposing such "radical" reforms at this moment?

Any truly innovative financial product that moves toward the mainstream market is ultimately tested not by how appealing the narrative is but by whether the underlying system is robust enough to withstand the entry of large-scale, low-tolerance funds.

In recent years, there has been no shortage of discussions about "on-chain," "decentralization," and "efficiency revolution," but these discussions have not been applied in reality because they often rely on immature foundations of funding, clearing, and risk control.

The NYSE is also very clever; it does not attempt to operate a blockchain system centered on itself but rather embeds tokenization within the existing market infrastructure.

Its parent company, ICE, is collaborating with traditional core banks such as BNY Mellon and Citibank to support tokenized deposits and related financial instruments within its clearinghouse system. This arrangement allows clearing members to allocate funds, fulfill margin obligations, and manage risk exposure even during non-business hours, thereby providing realistic funding and liquidity support for 7×24 hour trading.

Here, Crypto Salad wants to emphasize that when funds themselves begin to be tokenized, we are no longer talking about "conceptual assets," but "money" itself. Therefore, regulation, risk control, and access standards must be raised to a very high level; otherwise, the system cannot bear the trust of mainstream society.

For this reason, the NYSE has not attempted to "start from scratch" in market structure design. The platform emphasizes "non-discriminatory access" within a compliance framework, but this non-discrimination always has boundaries—it is only open to qualified broker-dealers, and all trading activities are still embedded within the existing market structure and regulatory logic, rather than floating outside the regulatory system. Thus, the entities that can stand firm in the future will not be new "counterparties," but rather the layer of infrastructure that can support user understanding, asset allocation, and trading entry on top of a compliant trading system.

In the context of the overarching trend, seizing ecological positions and occupying on-chain liquidity entry has become a necessary battle for various platform players like Ondo, Kraken, and MSX. This race not only involves crypto-native giants like Ondo but also platforms like MSX, which are deeply engaged in the U.S. stock market tokenization niche, constructing their defensive moats through high-frequency screening and launching new derivative products. For these smaller players, who can respond more quickly and accurately, as long as they can establish a foothold in this wave, the future potential is enormous.

At the same time, tokenization does not change the legal attributes of securities; tokenized shareholders still legally enjoy the corresponding dividend rights and governance rights of traditional securities. This point was considered crucial in the discussions: when a product attempts to enter the mainstream capital market, whether the rights are clear and the confirmation of rights is solid is far more important than the technical path itself.

From a more macro perspective, what the NYSE is trying to solve is not just the issue of trading efficiency but also the long-standing problem of liquidity fragmentation in traditional markets. By combining "high-trust institutional arrangements" with "more efficient technical means," it hopes to reintroduce trading demands that originally flowed to dark pools, over-the-counter structures, or unregulated platforms into a transparent, auditable, and accountable system. A recurring consensus in the discussions was that the innovations that can truly transcend cycles are often not the most radical ones but those that can withstand the most stringent tests at the compliance and infrastructure levels. Once such a structure is validated as feasible, the entry of traditional funds will not be a hindrance but rather an accelerator.

From a legal perspective, the deeper significance of this process is not just a technical upgrade but rather a phased evolution of the way capital is formed. Through on-chain clearing and custody, traditional financial institutions can make asset allocation more global and time-continuous without overturning existing securities laws and regulatory frameworks. This is not about "the old system being replaced by new technology," but rather about new technology being integrated into the core and most stringent operational logic of the old system—this is precisely the premise for mainstream finance to begin accepting a new form.

Special Statement: This article is an original work by the Crypto Salad team and represents the personal views of the author. It does not constitute legal advice or consultation on specific matters. For reprints, please contact us privately to discuss authorization matters: shajunlvshi.