How to define "real US stocks": differences between on-chain tokens, price contracts, and direct connections to brokers

By 2026, using stablecoins to buy U.S. stocks has become a mainstream trend. However, behind the phrase "buy U.S. stocks with USDT," various products claim to give users access to U.S. stock market data, but in reality, they are selling completely different assets. Some products convert U.S. stock exposure into on-chain tokens; others launch perpetual contracts tracking U.S. stock prices; still, others provide real U.S. stock trading services through licensed brokers. Their risk-return profiles, rights structures, and underlying logic are entirely different.

I. Overview of U.S. Stock Trading Platforms

Currently, the mainstream solutions for "buy U.S. stocks with USDT" can be clearly categorized into three types: Tokenized Stocks, Stock Futures, and Direct Broker Connections.

1. Tokenized Stocks

Tokenized Stocks are usually held by the issuer or its SPV/trust arrangements. Users hold economic rights represented by on-chain tokens, not direct shareholder identities in traditional securities accounts. The most representative issuer, Ondo Finance, has a TVL exceeding $1 billion, supporting over 200 mainstream stocks and ETFs; the overall market size has reached tens of billions of dollars.

2. Stock Futures

Stock contracts are the most efficient trading tools but are the furthest from "owning U.S. stocks"—users buy a price contract that has no legal connection to stock ownership.

By 2026, many mainstream trading platforms have launched perpetual/CFD products related to stocks, with significant differences in the number of underlying assets, leverage multiples, and available regions (roughly 5×–25×). On-chain platforms like Hyperliquid HIP-3 / Trade.xyz are also expanding into traditional asset perpetual contracts, with the core value of allowing global traders to express bullish or bearish views on traditional asset prices using stablecoins.

3. Direct Broker Connection Model

The operation logic of the direct broker connection model is similar to traditional brokers: users execute stock or ETF trades through a Broker-Dealer, assets are held via the U.S. clearing and custody system, and this is the only path where users truly purchase the stocks themselves. However, it’s important to note that different platforms operating under this model can vary significantly.

Source: Compiled from public information

II. Comparison of U.S. Stock Trading Products

The differences among these three modes are not only reflected in trading experience but also in legal rights, position holding cost structures, and regulatory protections.

Source: Compiled from public information

(1) Tokenized Stocks

Tokenized Stocks are essentially "on-chain shadows" of stocks—convenient and composable but with incomplete rights; the shareholder identity remains with the issuer.

The true differentiator of this mode is on-chain composability: tokens can serve as collateral in DeFi lending protocols to earn additional yields, can circulate 24/7 on-chain, and can be fragmented for purchase—features that traditional securities accounts cannot offer. However, there are clear limitations: shareholder identity resides with the issuer, not the user; most platforms do not credit dividends in cash directly; voting rights are advisory and non-binding. Although there is no Funding Fee, redemption spreads, on-chain transaction costs, and market-making spreads also constitute holding costs.

(2) Stock Futures / Equity Perpetuals

Stock Futures are "price betting tools" for stocks—efficient, flexible, 24/7 trading—but the funding rate long-term erodes position costs and has no relation to actual stock ownership.

By 2026, many trading platforms have launched perpetual/CFD products related to stocks, with leverage ranging roughly from 5× to 25×. They are the closest to the trading habits of crypto traders—margin trading, stop-loss/take-profit, two-way long/short, with operational logic identical to BTC perpetuals, just with different underlying assets, and trading 24/7 without halts. The core cost is that in trending markets, the funding rate can significantly increase, with annualized costs reaching double digits or even over 100%, slowly bleeding the "buy and hold" strategy. After closing the contract, users have no shareholder rights—only USDT profit or loss remains.

(3) Broker-Direct Model (Brokerage Model)

The broker-direct model is the closest to "actually owning stocks"—with the most complete rights and the cleanest long-term holding costs. The trade-off is sacrificing on-chain composability and 24/7 trading.

This model offers the most complete rights: actual stocks, cash dividends credited directly, formal voting rights (where applicable), and coverage of thousands of stocks. The main limitation is that trading hours follow U.S. market hours; holdings are not on-chain and cannot be integrated into DeFi ecosystems. It’s also crucial to understand that different platforms’ brokerage architectures significantly impact how user rights are conveyed—so it’s worth carefully examining the specific compliance structure before choosing a platform.

III. How to Define "Real Purchase of U.S. Stocks"

The three paths differ in features and target audiences, but for users seeking convenient long-term U.S. stock exposure via stablecoins, the advantages of the broker-direct model are very direct—each of its core differences directly addresses the main shortcomings of the other two modes, including:

Advantage 1: No Funding Fee, the cleanest long-term holding cost structure

Real U.S. stock holdings do not involve funding rates; holding the same stock for over a year, regardless of market sentiment, does not incur additional funding costs.

Stock Futures can have annualized holding costs reaching double digits in strong markets; Tokenized Stocks do not have Funding Fees but incur redemption spreads and on-chain transaction costs. In comparison, real U.S. stock holdings have the cleanest cost structure among the three.

Advantage 2: Deep coverage of underlying assets, unmatched by the other two modes

The broker-direct model covers thousands of U.S.-listed stocks and ETFs, far exceeding Tokenized Stocks’ approximately 200–260 stocks and the limited assets available in Stock Futures. For users needing exposure to mid-cap stocks, sector ETFs, or REITs, the broker-direct model offers a more reliable stablecoin deposit method.

Tokenized Stocks and Stock Futures mainly cover top popular assets; options for mid-cap stocks, sector ETFs, or REITs are almost nonexistent. The number of underlying assets in the broker-direct model currently has no comparable competitors.

Advantage 3: Genuine shareholder rights—this is a matter of nature, not degree

Holding real stocks typically credits dividends directly to the account in cash; voting rights, where applicable, can be exercised via formal proxy voting mechanisms (subject to account structure and regional restrictions).

Stock Futures have no shareholder attributes; Tokenized Stocks’ so-called voting is merely "expressing preferences to the issuer" and is not legally binding. The broker-direct model is the only path among the three that legally confers shareholder rights.

Advantage 4: Stablecoin deposits reduce reliance on traditional banking channels

Some brokerage platforms support USDT/USDC deposits and withdrawals, reducing dependence on traditional USD wire transfers. For users without overseas bank accounts, this is a substantial barrier reduction.

Traditional U.S. and Hong Kong stock brokers generally require bank wire transfers; without an overseas account, it’s quite troublesome. Supporting stablecoin deposits is currently the most practical advantage of platforms with this feature.

Advantage 5: Transferable holdings, open exit paths

In the broker-direct model, if the platform supports standard securities transfer mechanisms like ACATS / DTC, users can directly transfer their positions to other licensed brokers without selling first and re-establishing positions. This means exit paths are open, and users are not passively locked in due to platform changes.

Tokenized Stocks can only be redeemed for stablecoins; after contract closure, only USDT remains, and there’s no option for position transfer. The ability to transfer positions means users won’t be passively bound to a single platform.

However, the "broker-direct model" is not monolithic. Platforms claiming to offer "real U.S. stocks" may have vastly different broker architectures—directly determining where user assets are held, how SIPC protection is conveyed, and whether users can effectively assert rights if issues arise.

While U.S. stock trading appears to be conducted on NYSE or NASDAQ, the actual change of ownership of funds and securities is governed by the SEC-regulated clearing and settlement system. The entire system centers on DTCC: DTC (securities depository, with assets over $100 trillion) handles the final settlement of nearly all U.S. stock trades.

The core mechanism is CCP novation—the clearinghouse immediately becomes the counterparty for all trades after execution, reducing counterparty risk from broker insolvency. The key point is that user assets entering this clearing system are shared via the same infrastructure as large, established broker clients—not on any public blockchain, not within platform-specific accounts, and not relying on the platform’s own balance sheet.

Currently, there are four main architectures for accessing the clearing system, with differences in capital requirements, client identity disclosure, and SIPC protection pathways:

Source: Compiled from public information; DVP/RVP are common settlement methods for institutional clients, not directly comparable to retail broker structures.

For users:

• Fully Disclosed IB: Client identity fully transmitted to the Clearing Broker, SIPC protection pathway is most transparent, suitable for users valuing legal certainty.
• Omnibus IB: Clearing end only sees the IB’s aggregate position; SIPC protection is conveyed via the Clearing Broker, with specific pathways depending on client agreements—this is a common access mode in international cross-border securities services.
• Self-Clearing: Directly holds NSCC/DTC membership, offering the most direct protection but with very high capital requirements, typically only large, mature brokers like Schwab, Fidelity, IBKR qualify.

Therefore, when a platform claims to offer "real U.S. stocks," the critical question is: through which architecture does it connect to the U.S. clearing system? Where are user assets protected?

Taking BIT (formerly Matrixport) as an example, its compliance architecture is divided into three layers:

• First layer, GMC license, addresses "are user assets segregated?" The Bhutan GMC license provides a strong core for client fund segregation, with user funds held by an independent custodian and protected accordingly. This means BIT cannot use user stocks for its own financing or positions—this is the first institutional safeguard and the premise of "true ownership."
• Second layer, Omnibus IB architecture, addresses "where are user assets?" BIT connects to the U.S. NSCC clearing and DTC depository via two licensed U.S. brokers, both independently verified through FINRA BrokerCheck. The U.S. stocks purchased by users are ultimately deposited with these two institutions, not within BIT’s own accounts or internal ledgers. Assets share the same infrastructure as Schwab and Fidelity clients.
• Third layer, SIPC protection, addresses "what if worst-case scenarios?" Since BIT’s clearing institutions are SIPC members, this layer provides a statutory safety net, conveyed through account structures and client agreements, offering legal bottom-line protection (specific conveyance depends on client agreements).

Source: Compiled from public information

IV. Summary

Buying U.S. stocks with USDT involves three paths, each representing a fundamentally different asset. Tokenized Stocks are on-chain representations with shareholder identity at the issuer; Stock Futures track prices and are unrelated to actual stock ownership; only the broker-direct model truly enables you to buy stocks—offering the most complete rights and the cleanest long-term costs. Even within the broker-direct category, architecture differences determine the actual level of asset protection—whether the underlying clearing institutions and compliance structures are transparent and verifiable. It’s essential to verify these details before choosing a platform.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. It should not be interpreted as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any securities or financial instruments. All investments involve risks. Readers should conduct thorough research and consult licensed financial advisors before making any investment decisions.