On-chain brokerage platforms are moving beyond simple token issuance by combining stock access, stablecoin settlement, trading infrastructure and wealth products in a single service — a model that places compliance, asset custody and liquidity alongside the technology challenge.
StableStock, founded in 2025, is pursuing that model through a structure that links on-chain tokenized asset trading with off-chain settlement and clearing handled by a licensed partner. Its founder, Zixi, said the company abandoned an earlier plan for fully on-chain tokenization after testing several business approaches, concluding that a mixed system offered a more practical balance between efficiency and access to a broad range of listed securities.
The shift reflects a difficult reality for platforms offering stock-linked crypto products: trading interfaces can be built quickly, but the underlying securities, payment flows, licensing and market-making arrangements remain rooted in regulated financial infrastructure.
Zixi said the idea originated in 2021 while he was studying at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, when he began considering whether stablecoins could be used to purchase stocks. Several years of preparation followed before StableStock was established.
A model connecting stablecoins and stock settlement
StableStock’s operating model combines three components: off-chain asset packaging and settlement, on-chain trading of tokenized representations, and fee-arbitrage wealth products. The securities side of clearing is managed by a licensed partner, according to Zixi.
That structure requires platforms to manage two separate conversion processes. First, an off-chain share or other traditional asset must be packaged into an on-chain representation that users can trade. Second, stablecoins held on-chain must move through a settlement process capable of funding stock purchases in the conventional financial system.
Each path brings different operational risks. A tokenized equity product needs a clear relationship to its underlying asset, while a stablecoin-funded purchase requires dependable banking, payment and broker settlement links. Platforms that fail to coordinate those functions can offer a token that trades on-chain without delivering reliable exposure to the intended security.
The half-on-chain, half-off-chain approach can also widen the potential asset universe. Fully on-chain systems depend on tokenization arrangements for each supported asset, while an off-chain clearing partner can help connect a platform to existing securities-market processes.
Registrations do not replace securities permissions
Licensing remains the most expensive and difficult part of building such services, according to Zixi. He drew a distinction between securities licenses overseen by leading financial regulators and registration-style permissions used for payment or financial-services activity in certain jurisdictions.
In the United States, a broker-dealer seeking to operate in securities markets generally registers with the Securities and Exchange Commission through Form BD and must become a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Those requirements differ from registration as a money services business, which covers particular money-transmission and financial-crime compliance obligations but does not authorize securities brokerage.
Zixi said StableStock has completed U.S. MSB registration and registration as a financial service provider in New Zealand. He said neither status is equivalent to a securities trading license, and that the company is continuing work on higher-level licenses in major markets.
The cost profile explains why many tokenized-equity projects focus on limited products or partnerships rather than building full brokerage operations from the start. Zixi estimated one-time licence-related spending at hundreds of thousands to several hundred thousand U.S. dollars, with monthly compliance, legal and advisory expenses ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Those costs create a structural advantage for firms that can spread compliance spending across multiple revenue lines and a large customer base. They also make regulatory shortcuts particularly risky for platforms advertising access to underlying shares.
Revenue models move beyond trading fees
Two business models are emerging among on-chain stock platforms. One depends heavily on transaction fees: more users and more executed orders produce more revenue. That approach resembles an exchange model, where frequent activity across purchases, sales and liquidations supports earnings.
A second model layers brokerage-like and financial services on top of trading. Zixi said StableStock expects revenue from transaction fees, foreign-exchange charges, interest and liquidation fees tied to leveraged positions, and fees from wealth products.
Other potential lines of business in this segment include margin interest, income on idle client cash, securities lending, derivatives, subscriptions, payments and card services. The breadth of those services may determine whether platforms can absorb the fixed costs of licensing, legal work and liquidity provision.
Zixi described brokerage economics as thinner than exchange economics, with profitability more dependent on assets under management and trading scale. Exchanges can earn from high-frequency activity even when clients do not maintain large balances, while broker-style models tend to require more capital and a larger base of managed assets.
StableStock’s next product, according to Zixi, is a fee-arbitrage wealth offering now undergoing internal testing. He said it would use fee differences between platforms alongside the company’s trading strategies, with controls on leverage size and leverage ratios. The planned rollout would begin with institutional clients before extending to compliant and qualified individual users.
Liquidity and market volatility remain constraints
Industry participants identified compliance exposure, equity-market volatility and liquidity depth as the main pressures facing the sector.
For spot products connected to underlying shares, access to those shares is central to the business. One market participant said derivatives may face less direct pressure on asset sourcing, but spot platforms need stronger links to underlying securities and appropriate licensing coverage to reduce regulatory exposure.
Liquidity presents a separate challenge. A platform needs upstream sources of assets and liquidity, but it also needs reliable price discovery after traditional exchanges close. Trading stock-linked tokens around the clock would require robust pricing feeds, active market makers and incentives for liquidity providers during off-hours, when thin order books can produce sharp price deviations.
Equity volatility can magnify those problems. Sudden swings in U.S. or South Korean equities can generate customer losses, trigger leveraged liquidations and reduce the capital retained on a platform. The risk becomes more acute when a tokenized product trades outside the normal hours of the underlying exchange.
Zixi said StableStock plans to expand tradable assets gradually, naming South Korean and Japanese stocks as potential additions. The timing will depend on local compliance requirements and user demand, a constraint likely to shape the sector more than the speed at which new tokens can be issued.
Explore how stock-linked tokens work in practice—read this deep dive on tokenized equities for more regulatory and infrastructure insights.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
