If you're reading this and still haven't signed up, click the subscribe button below!

Pssst. We also have a podcast… find that here on your favourite podcast player or here on YouTube 🙏

Welcome to the Tokenized newsletter, brought to you by the creators of the Tokenized Podcast. Written by Simon Taylor of Fintech Brainfood and Shwetabh Sameer of Molten Ventures.

We are the newsletter for institutions that need help preparing for a Tokenized future.

We run through the headlines every week, what it means for you and a market readout. Always with an institutional, business-focused perspective. 

Join us every week as we meet your Tokenization needs.

💬Simon's Market Readout: 140 companies just backed a stablecoin called OpenUSD — Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, Coinbase, BlackRock, a hundred-odd banks. It's not chasing Circle or Tether's dollars. It's chasing the institutional money that never showed up at all.

📰 Stories You Can't Miss: Robinhood takes its L2 to mainnet and turns stock tokens into DeFi collateral; Securitize starts trading on the NYSE and puts a ticker on the tokenization thesis; and the Bank of England and FCA finalize the rulebook that decides whether a sterling stablecoin gets built at all.

This newsletter is sponsored by M0!

Most stablecoin platforms give you one stack, one issuer, no choices.

M0 is modular. Choose your regulated issuer. Design how your stablecoin behaves. Change anything as your business evolves.

Your stablecoin, your stack, built around your business

Learn more at m0.org.

Here comes a new challenger…

140 companies just agreed to share a stablecoin — Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, Coinbase, BlackRock, ICE, Google, Samsung, a hundred-odd banks behind a coin called OpenUSD. The reflex is to file it as the next challenger to Circle and Tether. That's the wrong read. Those two are undefeated: Paxos tried, USDG with Robinhood and Kraken tried, Circle came through the collapse of SVB, Silvergate and Signature, Tether has weathered live runs, and both are still standing. OpenUSD isn't fighting for the dollars already onchain. It's going after the ones that never showed up — the institutional money and the largest payment flows that have sat on the sidelines for years while stablecoins plainly worked for everyone else.

Three things I'd hold onto.

1. Neutrality is the product, not a nice-to-have. A for-profit issuer earns on float, which pushes it to vertically integrate and climb the stack — and the moment it does, it starts competing with the distributors it needs. No bank settles its flows across a rival's balance sheet. Take the profit motive out, hand the reserve yield to the distributors, and the thing stops looking like somebody's product. It starts looking like SWIFT, Visa, TCH — market structure a bank can hold a piece of without funding a competitor. That's the unlock the euro consortiums and Ubyx have been circling for a year.

2. Zero mint-and-burn changes what's economical. Theo Golden at Baillie Gifford put the incumbent problem plainly: a few basis points might survive a payment, but on a trade where you're fighting for a single bp, a 5-10bp haircut is not comprehensible. Set those fees to zero by default and you open capital markets and large-dollar settlement that were priced out from the start. Spread the reserves across balance sheets that don't live or die by the coin, and you answer the concentration risk that saw USDC touch 88 cents when SVB went down. A CFO can't build a settlement layer on "probably survives."

3. Distribution is not adoption. USDG had Robinhood and Kraken and went almost nowhere. A hundred and forty logos can sign a press release and still leave you with a coin nobody moves. I'm watching three wedges for the first real volume: acquiring settlement, where Visa-to-Stripe dollars could clear instantly; cross-border correspondent flows for everyone outside the top 20 banks; and weekend cash settlement, now that Hyperliquid's oil futures spiked roughly 250x and Wall Street has stopped pretending markets close.

Libra was the first big moment for this technology. GENIUS was the second. OpenUSD might be the third — and the reason isn't price. For two years the argument was that stablecoins are cheaper. They are. But the point was always that they're better: instant, 24/7, global, programmable. This is a play for the money that was stuck in a closed loop, or sitting in a nostro over a weekend. There's a long road from logos to live volume. But it's the road in front of them now.

Robinhood took its Arbitrum L2 to mainnet this week and shipped Stock Tokens into 120-plus countries -except the US. The chain and the 24/7 trading are becoming table stakes; every exchange from Kraken to Coinbase has an equities play.

What Robinhood is reaching for runs deeper - the financing and securities-lending layer prime brokers have monopolized, repackaged as a retail feature. A share in a brokerage account sits idle overnight; a tokenized, self-custodied version can be posted as collateral or lent the moment you hold it. For now, that means everywhere but home.

Key Points

The Tokenized Take

Prime brokerage is the target. Hold a stock today and the prime broker earns on both sides: the fee shorts pay to borrow it, and the financing you pay to borrow against it. A tokenized, self-custodied share can route both to the holder instead. That's the new thing - the holder controls the asset across venues, without a broker gatekeeping its next move. None of it clears yet, though. Earn's USDG lends against crypto collateral, not stock tokens, and the token financing market needs two things that don't exist — borrow demand for a given token, and the shares behind it actually being lent. Robinhood already shares Stock Lending revenue with US retail; the shift is the composability, not the split.

To the user, none of this shows. Lending USDG or holding a Stock Token feels almost like doing it inside Coinbase - both make DeFi look like just another balance in the app. The difference is where the custody line sits. Coinbase hides the lending protocol inside its main app; Robinhood routes you into a self-custody wallet you actually hold the keys to. What differs more is everything behind the tap. Coinbase shipped USDC lending and went deeper into the US. Robinhood shipped an L2, equity-token collateral, its own perps venue, and agentic accounts in one release. It also earns a share of the reserve income on the USDG it distributes, and holds equity in Lighter, the perp DEX those trades route to. Coinbase captures none of those layers. Any one primitive is table stakes. Owning all of them, and the economics at each layer, is the harder thing Robinhood did.

Earn is the other half of the machine, and it launched in the US. It drops USDG lending into an app users already have - the same invisible-infrastructure move ING made putting crypto into existing accounts. Robinhood is building both sides of a credit market and the chain beneath it. Today they're separate - Earn lends USDG against DeFi collateral, while the stock tokens sit in other markets entirely. The design points at one system: American dollars financing tokenized equity. Securities law is what keeps two halves apart. The lenders would be American. The borrowers couldn't be.

The nearer-term problem is what the insurance doesn't cover. The Lloyd's/RELM cover pays on exploits. It won't pay for the parameter errors and depeg contagion that actually break a curated lending vault - the curator risk we flagged on June 18. The collateral side is harder still. A KYC-gated token doesn't liquidate the way DeFi lending assumes: only whitelisted addresses can hold it, so there's no open pool of liquidators. That's where offshore wrappers stalled. As Eric Saraniecki argued on this week's podcast, tokenized equities are won or lost at the prime-broker layer - who runs the round-the-clock margining when the collateral never sleeps. Robinhood's structure answers what backs the token but not the timing. The underlying trades only US market hours, so a weekend crash leaves its market-makers holding the gap until Monday.

Two models now run in parallel. The permissionless one Robinhood is exporting (self-custody, composable) ships abroad, DeFi as the wedge into markets a per-country licence could never open all at once. The US is assembling the institutional one - Paxos granted temporary SEC registration to settle equities and cash on one ledger, NYSE naming Securitize its transfer agent, ICE and OKX standing up a 50/50 venture for OKX's 120 million users. Being behind isn't the interesting part. The open question is whether the version Robinhood is exporting ever gets a domestic on-ramp - or whether Americans end up renting infrastructure built for everyone else.

Securitize starts trading as SECZ today, and the number attached to it is the story. We watched the tokenization vertical get assembled by Securitize this year - the NYSE transfer-agent role in March, FINRA custody and the Computershare distribution deal in April. Today that stack trades as a single public equity for the first time. And the price it carries tells you what you're buying - a bet on the category, not near-term earnings.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

Start with the multiple. Management guides to $110 million for 2026. The $1.25 billion pre-money puts SECZ near 11x forward revenue - ~15x once the raise is counted - for a business still in the red. That guidance asks revenue to climb about 40% above the current run-rate of ~$78 million. A desk buying SECZ is buying the timeline - whether tokenization scales as fast as Securitize has sold it. First time that bet has had a ticker.

The recurring revenue is more concentrated than the fund count suggests. Asset servicing scales with tokenized-fund AUM, and BUIDL is roughly two-thirds of the $4.6 billion Securitize issues. Management is explicit that all revenue tracks AUM - so you're underwriting a BlackRock-anchored base. But Apollo's tokenized credit fund ACRED earns richer economics than BUIDL, so margin isn't uniform across the book. And part of that growth is acquired, not organic - Securitize bought fund administrator MG Stover in April 2025. Underneath the logos, you're still buying one thesis, tokenized AUM growth, with several names attached.

That AUM bet only pays off if one structural claim holds - that the regulated transfer agent is the source of truth for tokenized capital markets, and Securitize owns that seat across the US and EU. Every prime broker and custodian weighing whether to build or buy is now pricing against a public comp.

Assume Securitize executes. The valuation still breaks if tokenized trading routes around the register altogether. Wrapper products like Kraken's xStocks and Ondo Global Markets give investors tokenized exposure with no transfer agent recording ownership - and today they live largely offshore, closed to US persons. Offshore limits how much they can pull from Securitize's US rail - but it's also where the early tokenized-equity volume has clustered. If that flow keeps building on the wrappers, the market has paid infrastructure prices for the layer the volume skips

Last week covered the Bank of England's systemic regime — the 70/30 reserves, the £40bn cap, the central-bank backstop. This week fills in the part that actually matters for anyone building: the FCA's final solo rules, which is where every UK issuer starts. Systemic designation is years away for a market with no sterling coin of any size. The FCA regime is the one that decides whether a sterling coin gets built at all.

The one exception is the reader most likely to build here. HMT can designate an issuer "systemic at launch" if its model looks important to UK payments from day one - a bank consortium, or a Circle-scale entrant arriving big. That sounds like a shortcut, but it runs the other way: a systemic-at-launch issuer takes on dual supervision and the Bank's prudential regime from the outset, skipping the lighter solo tier entirely. What it buys is central-bank settlement access - earned over the transition, not switched on at launch.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The UK isn't competing on yield and knows it. A GENIUS issuer earns on up to 100% of its float; a UK issuer earns on about 70%. Where the UK wins is the cost of the licence - a 1% capital charge against MiCA's 2%, on bases the FCA is careful to call not quite like-for-like, plus a central-bank backstop neither MiCA nor GENIUS offers. The limit is that charge scales with the book, so for a large issuer it can still top a fixed US requirement. Cheaper than MiCA, not cheaper than everyone.

The problem is timing. The EU's transitional window shut on 1 July with no extension. Binance, the largest exchange by volume, restricted EU services rather than operate without a MiCA license. And Coinbase and OKX moved within days to poach its users with transfer bonuses of 5% and up to 8%. The UK can't take an application until Q4. The market is re-sorting now; the better rulebook opens later.

That gap is the whole question. An issuer choosing a decade-long home might happily wait sixteen months for cheaper capital - those are exchange users moving, not charters. But an issuer that needs distribution now has somewhere to go today. The first real test of the UK's bet is who's in the queue when the gateway opens on 30 September.

Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!

Please share this edition or share it with your colleagues if you enjoyed it!

Disclaimers