The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a tightly controlled path for trading tokenized versions of publicly listed U.S. stocks, but the framework confines that activity to permissioned automated market maker pools, places a strict cap on volume, and gives stock issuers the power to object to use of their shares.
The Sept. 18 exemptive framework applies to tokenized National Market System stocks—securities traded on major U.S. equity markets—and runs for five years. It creates a defined category of “tokenized securities venue” that can operate blockchain-based markets under specified conditions. The approach allows tokenization to be tested within existing securities rules rather than creating a broad authorization for crypto platforms to list digital stock products.
Participation would be restricted from the start. Both traders and liquidity providers must complete know-your-customer and know-your-business checks before using an automated market maker, or AMM, pool. An AMM is a smart-contract-based trading mechanism that sets prices from the balances of assets held in a pool rather than matching individual buy and sell orders.
That requirement puts the proposed model closer to a controlled securities marketplace than to open, permissionless decentralized finance. It also excludes central limit order book designs, where traders submit bids and offers that are matched against one another. The SEC’s definition of a qualifying tokenized securities venue specifically centers on AMM pools and eligibility controls.
A narrow exemption for registered stocks
The SEC limits the exemption to tokenized NMS stocks that are registered with the agency. A qualifying token must carry the same rights as the conventional security, including equivalent dividend and voting rights as well as proportional claims on residual assets in a bankruptcy liquidation.
Those conditions target tokenization of an existing equity interest rather than products that merely track a stock’s price. The framework excludes third-party crypto assets representing their own securities, tokenized linked securities, and tokenized security-based swaps that create synthetic exposure to an underlying share.
Venues also face limits on which assets can be traded against tokenized shares. The SEC lists other tokenized NMS stocks, non-security crypto assets such as payment stablecoins issued by compliant payment-stablecoin issuers, and tokenized money market funds. The document does not offer a more detailed classification of crypto assets that would qualify as non-securities beyond those examples.
The rules would therefore make a familiar crypto trading pair—such as a stock token against a dollar-pegged stablecoin—possible only if every component meets the SEC’s conditions. A platform could not use the exemption to launch a broad menu of synthetic equities, derivatives, or tokens tied to offshore-issued stock products.
Volume ceiling constrains market impact
Tokenized NMS stock trading under the exemption may not exceed 0.25% of the underlying share’s average daily trading volume during the previous month. The calculation must use data disclosed by an effective transaction reporting plan, the market-data infrastructure used in U.S. equity trading.
For heavily traded large-cap stocks, the threshold could still permit some activity, but it prevents tokenized pools from becoming a major source of price formation under the trial framework. The cap also places practical limits on how much liquidity a venue can attract before its trading in a particular stock is constrained.
The SEC acknowledged that AMM-based venues could not comply with Regulation NMS without substantial changes to their trading model. Regulation NMS includes market-structure requirements designed to protect equity traders, including rules related to execution quality. AMMs determine a quoted price based only on the ratio of assets in a pool, which can differ from prices available across conventional stock exchanges.
That design creates a particular concern in thin pools. A comparatively modest trade can move an AMM’s price sharply when liquidity is limited, potentially producing a gap between the tokenized share and its traditionally traded equivalent. The SEC cited possible price dislocations as one of the risks associated with these markets.
Issuers retain an effective veto
Companies whose shares are tokenized would have a direct way to stop trading on a venue relying on the exemption. If an issuer sends written notice objecting to trading in a specific tokenized NMS stock, the venue may no longer permit that token to trade.
The provision gives listed companies substantial influence over whether their stock develops an on-chain market. It could prove especially consequential for issuers concerned that blockchain transfers could complicate shareholder-record maintenance, corporate actions, voting processes, or compliance with ownership restrictions.
The SEC specifically identified shareholder-record concerns arising from on-chain transfers. While the framework requires token holders to receive equivalent shareholder rights, venues and issuers would still need operational systems capable of linking blockchain movements with the records needed for dividends, voting, and other corporate events.
A venue must also be able to halt trading, adding another control that differs from the uninterrupted operation often associated with blockchain protocols. The agency requires extensive operational and disclosure measures, including SEC access to relevant books and records. Operators must publish a notice on their website at least 30 calendar days before beginning activity under the exemption.
Permissioned AMMs leave order-book platforms outside the route
Huang, co-founder of the DeFi protocol Glider, highlighted the structure’s constraints in a Sept. 22 post on X. Huang pointed to the required permissioned AMM pools, the exclusion of central limit order book models, and the requirement that eligible tokens represent SEC-registered NMS securities.
The exclusion matters for platforms built around order books rather than liquidity pools. Huang cited Hyperliquid’s spot-market model as an example of a design outside the exemption’s definition. The post said Hyperliquid had roughly 70 spot pairs and daily spot volume equivalent to about half of Uniswap’s, though those comparisons do not alter the SEC’s venue criteria.
Huang also said existing permissionless stock tokens trade at less than 0.001% of the volume of their corresponding underlying shares. The SEC’s own market-size reference places tokenized stocks at roughly $3 billion, compared with about $70 trillion for the traditional stock market, illustrating how limited the segment remains relative to conventional equities.
The agency described potential advantages of the technology, including self-custody, around-the-clock trading, fractional ownership, and near-instant clearing and settlement. It also said tokenized systems may lower operating, recordkeeping, and trading costs. Those potential efficiencies are being tested inside a market structure designed to keep activity small, identifiable, and linked to registered securities.
For operators, the immediate challenge is less about launching a permissionless stock market than building compliance, identity screening, shareholder-rights administration, liquidity controls, and trading-halting systems into an AMM-based venue. The five-year exemption gives firms a route to test that model, while the volume ceiling and issuer objection process ensure traditional equity-market participants remain central to its operation.
Want deeper context on tokenized stock rules and RWA trends? Explore our guide on tokenized equities next.
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.
