I checked spreads on Robinhood's bStock against a similar third-party version. The difference surprised me.
Binance's tokenized stock product only launched in June, but by August it had already pulled ahead of xStocks to become the second largest issuer in the space, based on recent market data. The tokenized equity market overall grew to around $2.7 billion, more than 30 times its size a year earlier. That's fast growth for a product barely two months old.
I wanted to see if that growth showed up anywhere practical, not just in headline AUM numbers. So I compared order book depth on $HOODB against a Robinhood token listed elsewhere. The Binance version had noticeably tighter spreads and more resting liquidity at the top of the book, even during a quiet trading window. HOODB filled a mid-size order with almost no slippage. The comparison version didn't.
That tracks with something in the same report: 93% of Binance's stock trading users reportedly came from emerging markets. A user base concentrated there tends to prioritize accessible, liquid rails over brand loyalty to any single issuer, and liquidity tends to follow wherever the volume already is. It's a bit circular, but it explains why one issuer can pull ahead of a crowded field fairly quickly once it gets enough initial traction.
I'm not assuming this liquidity gap holds for every ticker across every issuer. HOODB happened to be the one I tested, and results could differ elsewhere. Worth checking case by case before treating one comparison as a rule, something #bStocksCIS threads would be useful for verifying at scale.
Has anyone compared spreads across issuers for the same underlying stock? Curious if @BinanceCIS has aggregate data beyond a single order book snapshot.
Binance's tokenized stock product only launched in June, but by August it had already pulled ahead of xStocks to become the second largest issuer in the space, based on recent market data. The tokenized equity market overall grew to around $2.7 billion, more than 30 times its size a year earlier. That's fast growth for a product barely two months old.
I wanted to see if that growth showed up anywhere practical, not just in headline AUM numbers. So I compared order book depth on $HOODB against a Robinhood token listed elsewhere. The Binance version had noticeably tighter spreads and more resting liquidity at the top of the book, even during a quiet trading window. HOODB filled a mid-size order with almost no slippage. The comparison version didn't.
That tracks with something in the same report: 93% of Binance's stock trading users reportedly came from emerging markets. A user base concentrated there tends to prioritize accessible, liquid rails over brand loyalty to any single issuer, and liquidity tends to follow wherever the volume already is. It's a bit circular, but it explains why one issuer can pull ahead of a crowded field fairly quickly once it gets enough initial traction.
I'm not assuming this liquidity gap holds for every ticker across every issuer. HOODB happened to be the one I tested, and results could differ elsewhere. Worth checking case by case before treating one comparison as a rule, something #bStocksCIS threads would be useful for verifying at scale.
Has anyone compared spreads across issuers for the same underlying stock? Curious if @BinanceCIS has aggregate data beyond a single order book snapshot.
