When brokerages set their sights on cryptocurrency trading

"I've been having conference calls until 2 AM every day recently."

The speaker is a veteran finance professional who has been in the traditional brokerage industry for over a decade. As he said this, he placed his phone face down on the coffee table. The corners of his eyes were slightly red, but his tone remained very nonchalant.

His office in Beijing is located in a siheyuan in Xicheng District, where the two large doors are slightly peeling. The afternoon light slants into the courtyard, with some dust floating in the beams. He sits at an old wooden table, dealing with issues related to regulation, business cooperation, and project scheduling.

Starting in the finance industry over a decade ago, he experienced the last financial crisis and has rolled with the punches in global markets, managing funds, running products, and leading teams across continents. In recent years, he has begun to shift towards a direction that the entire traditional finance industry initially deemed "uncertain"—virtual assets.

The traditional finance industry's attention to Web3 did not begin in 2025. If we trace back, many people would mention Robinhood.

This platform, known for "zero-commission stock trading," launched Bitcoin and Ethereum trading features as early as 2018. Initially, it was just a supplement to their product line, allowing users to buy cryptocurrencies like they would buy Tesla stocks, without needing a wallet or understanding blockchain. This feature was not heavily promoted at the time but became a breakout point years later.

In the fourth quarter of last year, cryptocurrencies contributed over 35% of Robinhood's total net revenue, with trading volume surging by 455%, driving trading revenue up 733% year-on-year to $358 million, making cryptocurrency Robinhood's largest revenue source for the quarter. In the first quarter of 2025, cryptocurrencies contributed over 27% of total revenue, with trading revenue doubling year-on-year to $252 million.

Robinhood quarterly cryptocurrency asset trends, source: IO.FUND

What drove this change was not technology, but the clicks of thousands of users. Robinhood did not tell a Web3 narrative; it simply adapted to users' trading habits and found that cryptocurrency trading was no longer a marginal business but had become the core engine of the company's growth.

Subsequently, Robinhood gradually transformed from a centralized brokerage into a digital asset trading platform.

With Robinhood setting the example, traditional finance finally decided in 2025 to stop merely observing the crypto industry and collectively enter the market. They are not here to experience Web3 or invest in projects; "traditional finance will take over the crypto industry within 10 years."

We are already in the midst of this reshuffling of traditional brokerages against crypto natives.

In March 2025, one of the world's largest retail brokerages, Charles Schwab, with over $10 trillion in assets under management, announced it would open spot Bitcoin trading services within a year.

In May 2025, Morgan Stanley, one of Wall Street's most influential investment banks, announced plans to officially integrate BTC and ETH into its trading platform E*Trade, providing retail users with direct trading channels.

In May 2025, JPMorgan, the largest bank in the U.S. and long critical of crypto, announced it would allow clients to purchase Bitcoin.

In July 2025, Standard Chartered, a long-established British bank focusing on Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, announced it would open spot trading services for Bitcoin and Ethereum to institutional clients.

These are colossal entities that dominate the global financial system, controlling the flow of funds, clearing networks, and fiat payment systems worldwide, holding assets worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, while the total market cap of the current crypto market is only $4 trillion.

Mainstream asset market cap ranking, source: Steemit Community

They are gradually completing their layout in the crypto field based on traditional finance compliance frameworks. When an institution possesses compliance trust, user traffic, and clearing capabilities, it has all the elements needed to build a crypto trading network.

In the traditional financial system, whoever controls the account opening authority can control the flow of funds, customer relationships, and even the ultimate pricing power. For a long time, crypto trading platforms defined their narrative through token listings and controlled liquidity through deposits, but now, the "asset entry" role that CEXs have held for nearly a decade is gradually being reclaimed by traditional finance.

"Those crypto trading platforms should start to feel anxious."

His tone remains restrained, without a hint of schadenfreude. The source of anxiety may not just stem from the entry of a particular institution or the introduction of a specific policy, but from a sense of industry awareness that crypto trading platforms may no longer be the only ones at the financial table who can deal cards.

Ways to Stay at the Table

An insider from a crypto trading platform told us that he often replies to messages at 5 AM. He discusses cooperation during the day, monitors progress at night, and checks user community feedback late into the night, hardly getting any sleep.

"We can only seek survival amid anxiety."

The anxiety he speaks of is the competition between platforms, the daily struggle to capture users, products, and traffic.

The root of this fierce competition lies in the dwindling growth space within the industry and the significant external pressure.

Traditional finance is gradually encroaching on the core capabilities that crypto trading platforms rely on for survival—from fiat deposits to asset custody, from user account openings to spot matching. They come with regulatory licenses and millions of users, and they seem determined not to coexist with crypto-native platforms.

Almost all crypto trading platforms have immediately launched tokenized stock products. Users can buy Apple with USDT, leverage Nvidia, or trade Tesla through on-chain contracts. These traditional asset tokenization solutions have been launched across multiple platforms, becoming a collective industry action.

Bybit was the first to take the plunge. They completed the development and launch of U.S. stock token products in just two months, moving quickly from internal project initiation to engaging with the XStocks team and finally launching the product.

In Bybit's view, the core advantages of centralized trading platforms still exist. The real users, strong liquidity, and trading depth accumulated over the years are resources that external brokerages cannot replicate overnight.

The launch of U.S. stock tokens was driven by a clear demand gap, such as trading needs during market closure or geographical and regulatory restrictions preventing users from entering traditional stock markets. The 7×24 nature of crypto opens up new liquidity spaces for traditional assets.

Of course, this does not mean that this is a guaranteed victory. Bybit's spot trading head, Emily, admits that U.S. stock tokens are still in the early stages, with participation and enthusiasm far less than that for high-traffic new tokens.

However, she remains optimistic about this direction because it represents Crypto's expansion into the world of TradFi. DeFi, synthetic assets, and on-chain staking—these new derivative scenarios for traditional assets on-chain may represent the true value of this path.

However, these features seem to be actively exploring new markets, but many see them more as a form of passive defense.

When trading platforms no longer hold the dominant position of "asset entry," they begin to try to appear as if they are still connected to the world. Thus, tokenized stocks have become the most common defensive move at this stage.

Tokenized stocks are not a new concept.

Back in 2020, FTX proposed the model of tokenized stocks. They launched trading pairs like TSLA/BTC and AAPL/USDT, seen as an attempt to challenge the pricing logic of traditional finance.

That was a time when the crypto space still had an aggressive spirit. FTX aimed to rewrite the trading methods of traditional finance with crypto finance and to price Nasdaq with crypto finance.

Perhaps they had already seen that the biggest future competitor for crypto trading platforms would be brokerages, so they took the initiative. Looking back now, this model has been picked up by the industry again, but it has already changed in nature. After FTX's collapse, tokenized stocks became a tourniquet rather than a battering ram.

Data also confirms this point.

After the launch of the tokenized stock model, there was indeed an initial wave of community attention, but activity quickly declined, and attempts by various platforms failed to make much of a splash.

In contrast, during the same period, the memecoin market on Solana took a completely different trajectory. A tweet from Musk could quickly propel the market cap of related meme coins to hundreds of millions, with daily trading volumes in the tens of millions of dollars, far exceeding the weekly trading volumes of many tokenized stock trading pairs.

Above: XStocks trading volume, source: Dune; Below: meme coin Ani trading volume, source: gmgn

New features, no new users.

At this stage, what features CEXs launch is no longer important. What matters is why they are launching these features and whether these features can reclaim the role they are losing.

This wave of tokenized stock enthusiasm is not due to industry progress but because no one dares to do nothing.

Kant said, "Freedom is not doing whatever you want, but being able to refrain from doing what you do not want to do."

Compliance is Just an Illusion

In recent times, almost all crypto trading platforms have been discussing compliance. Each is striving to apply for licenses, adjust business structures, and bring in executives with traditional finance backgrounds, attempting to prove they have emerged from the wild era and become more like financial institutions that can be accepted by regulators.

This is a consensus in the industry, as well as a collective anxiety.

However, in the eyes of traditional finance professionals, this understanding of compliance remains too superficial.

"Many trading platforms go to small countries to obtain licenses to prove compliance, but those licenses are hardly considered legitimate; they can't even get to the table," he says, his tone not sharp but more like stating an industry common sense.

What he means by "getting to the table" is not whether you have a business license, but whether you can connect to the real financial system—whether you can open accounts at mainstream banks, use clearing networks, and gain the trust of regulatory agencies to engage in genuine business cooperation.

This implies a reality: in the eyes of traditional finance, the crypto world has never been treated as an equal.

The traditional financial system is built on chains of responsibility and trust loops, emphasizing transparent customer structures, risk control, auditing capabilities, and the explainability of funding paths. In contrast, crypto platforms often grow in the gaps of the system, maintaining high profits and growth in early stages through gray areas, but rarely have the ability to build these compliance foundations.

In fact, these issues are well understood within the circle. But previously, no one cared because there was no competition for this territory. Now that traditional financial institutions are entering the scene, they operate according to their own rules, and the "industry practices" of the crypto sector suddenly become significant flaws.

Some platforms are indeed making adjustments, introducing compliance audits, establishing offshore trust structures, and splitting businesses to appear more legitimate.

However, many regulatory agencies in various countries do not buy it. They may superficially cooperate with you to discuss processes, but deep down, they never intended to treat you as part of the formal financial system. No matter how legitimate you appear, it doesn't mean they will actually keep you around.

However, not all trading platforms are merely putting on a show. Bybit is one of the few that has truly broken through the regulatory shell. This year, they became one of the first centralized trading platforms to obtain the European MiCA license and established their European headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

Bybit does not deny that this process is challenging, nor do they shy away from the regulatory skepticism towards the industry. But as Emily stated, regulation is no longer the same as five years ago when they did not understand crypto. Now, regulatory agencies are beginning to genuinely understand the business logic and technical structure of this industry. Their understanding is deepening from technology, models to market promotion, and the basis for cooperation is becoming more solid.

Additionally, Bitget's Chinese head, Xie Jiayin, told us that Bitget has obtained virtual asset licenses in multiple countries and has built local compliance structures according to regional regulatory requirements. He revealed that the team is actively pushing for the MiCA license application, hoping to establish a more stable business channel in the European market and lay the groundwork for future cross-border operations under a unified regulatory framework.

Even so, such cases remain the minority. For most platforms, they neither have licenses, networks, and trust endorsements within the traditional financial system, nor are they still benefiting from the high growth dividends brought by the previous institutional vacuum. Attempting to transform through compliance, they find the barriers too high; wanting to revert to being crypto natives, they discover another batch of competitors eyeing them.

Thus, everyone can only continue to align with regulators, continue discussing compliance, applying for licenses, and running processes. Often, these actions are not strategic choices but a sense of anxiety being pushed forward.

The Midpoint of the Game

In the community at 5 AM, Xie Jiayin is still replying to users' questions one by one. Some ask how to trade tokenized stocks, some inquire about the platform's recent compliance progress, and others ask about the situation with PUMP subscriptions and how they plan to handle it. He says that he and his colleagues often stay up late; an all-nighter is nothing unusual.

On a hot afternoon in Beijing, in a siheyuan, an executive from a Hong Kong brokerage is having tea and discussing cooperation with several executives from listed companies. The reception room is separated by a carved wooden door, and outside is a courtyard paved with blue bricks, with the sound of insects in the shade of the trees.

Looking further away, in Vienna, Austria, Bybit's new European headquarters has just completed its ribbon-cutting ceremony and is officially starting operations. This is their European outpost established after obtaining the MiCA license. They are among the first centralized trading platforms to have crossed the river, while most of their peers are still feeling their way across.

They are in different places, with different emotions and rhythms, but what they say resonates subtly: all mention "the pace of change is too fast," all talk about "taking it slow," and all are pondering how the industry should continue moving forward.

The premise for moving forward has already changed from a few years ago.

Crypto trading platforms may no longer be the most central role in this world, no longer the starting point for all traffic and narratives. They are standing on the edge of a new order, slowly being pushed out of the core by an invisible set of rules.

More complex systems and larger capital are gradually replacing the original narratives and structures.

Crypto trading platforms are still here, new product features are being launched as usual, and announcements are being made one after another. Their modes of expression are changing, their rhythms of communication are changing, and the contexts they wish to integrate into are changing—everything is changing.

Some changes are proactive choices, some are passive acceptances, but more often, they are just trying to retain some sense of presence without being eliminated by the times.

However, not everyone is pessimistic. Both Xie Jiayin and Emily believe that the impact of Crypto on traditional finance is greater than the latter's pressure on CEXs. They are optimistic about the trend of traditional financial institutions entering the market because every round of evolution in the industry requires new players and new participants. Centralized trading platforms have developed to this point, continuously expanding their institutional client base and beginning to engage in wealth management, asset allocation, and more. The businesses of both sides are intersecting and merging; "the two financial worlds resonate with each other, which is a romantic moment."

But at the same time, everyone is also aware that this advantage does not exempt them from anxiety.

Many questions will not have clear answers. For example, will regulators truly allow these crypto trading platforms to operate? Will traditional finance genuinely be willing to co-build rather than replace?

Also, before the next round of industry main themes arrives, do they still have an opportunity to redefine themselves?

No one dares to speak too confidently about these questions. Everyone is dealing with their part of the work—holding meetings, modifying products, applying for licenses, waiting for feedback—maintaining the status quo while waiting for opportunities to regain the initiative.

Waiting for the wave of industry reshuffling.