NYSE's tokenization plan is under attack: Is 24/7 trading really unnecessary with blockchain?

The NYSE’s tokenized securities trading platform plan has recently sparked heated discussions in the industry. Analyst Omid Malekan of Fortune magazine pointed out that this grand plan, while seemingly innovative, is actually a “blank check dressed in blockchain clothing.” His criticism hits at the core contradiction of the plan—the NYSE wants the name of blockchain, not its essence.

Core Logic of the Criticism

Omid’s doubts can be summarized into three levels:

Pseudo-necessity at the technical level
The NYSE emphasizes 24/7 trading and instant settlement, but these are not capabilities unique to blockchain. Existing centralized systems can technically achieve these functions. The real resistance does not come from technical limitations but from the vested interests of existing intermediaries and business partners—these institutions profit from current trading hours and settlement cycles.

Suspicious details lacking transparency
What’s more puzzling is the NYSE’s silence on key details. According to the latest news, the plan has not disclosed information such as:

• Which blockchains are supported
• Which stablecoins will be used
• Programming languages and virtual machines involved
• Specific token standards and schemes

Considering that the plan “awaits regulatory approval,” this lack of detail appears unprofessional.

Fundamental conflict between business model and philosophy
This is the most interesting part. The core advantage of public blockchains is not database efficiency but permissionless global access and a financial architecture similar to bearer assets. Yet, the NYSE explicitly maintains a “qualified broker-dealer only” market structure. This means the NYSE wants the shell of blockchain technology but is willing to abandon its most valuable feature—decentralization.

Industry Perspectives Split

Interestingly, opinions on this plan are sharply divided within the industry:

Optimists

Binance founder CZ said this “is beneficial for both cryptocurrencies and crypto trading platforms.” Carlos Domingo, CEO of Securitize under BlackRock, believes it’s an “unprecedented positive development” because it enables native tokenized stock on-chain trading without wrappers or derivatives.

Skeptics

Omid’s criticism represents another voice—that this plan might merely be a superficial application of blockchain concepts by traditional finance, rather than genuine innovation.

Fundamental Question: Innovation or Packaging?

Omid’s critique hits the key issue. The NYSE’s plan appears to pose a choice:

• Either truly embrace decentralization, support permissionless global access, which would be real blockchain innovation
• Or continue with existing permissioned structures and intermediaries, making blockchain just a database upgrade

The NYSE seems to want both, which is exactly what Omid refers to as “concept packaging”—using the name of blockchain to do traditional finance.

Summary

The core of this controversy isn’t about technology but philosophy. Is the NYSE’s tokenization plan a genuine shift from traditional finance to blockchain, or just a marketing stunt? While Omid’s critique is sharp, it highlights an unavoidable fact: if the NYSE ultimately chooses to maintain its current permissioned structure and business model, then the blockchain aspect of this plan is merely superficial, not fundamental. This may explain why opinions in the industry vary so greatly—because they are actually debating two different issues.