Nasdaq’s move towards tokenised shares has sharpened a question for XRP holders: which parts of an onchain stock market would actually require the coin? The answer runs through ownership records, cash settlement and liquidity, with very different implications for XRP demand.
Summary
- Nasdaq agreed to invest $100 million in Kraken parent Payward in September.
- The companies expect Nasdaq Equity Tokens to launch in the second quarter of 2027.
- The SEC approved Nasdaq’s DTC-linked tokenised securities rule change on March 18.
- CSD BR’s XRPL project begins with fund records, not its entire BRL 22 trillion registered asset base.
- A standard XRPL transaction has a minimum cost of 0.00001 XRP before load adjustments.
Nasdaq has committed to a $100 million investment in Kraken parent Payward as its tokenised equity plans advance, putting the role of public blockchains under closer scrutiny among XRP investors.
Nasdaq’s September 10 announcement identifies Payward’s xStocks ecosystem as the connection for its proposed Nasdaq Equity Tokens, with a launch expected in the second quarter of 2027.
The initiative is a documented route towards blockchain-based equities. It is not an announcement that Nasdaq will settle its market through the XRP Ledger or require XRP for every stock transaction.
XRPL has its own institutional projects, including Brazilian investment-fund records and a tokenised Treasury redemption. Their design provides a more useful starting point for assessing XRP demand than applying a percentage to the value of global stocks.
Nasdaq’s announced route runs through Payward and existing market infrastructure
As crypto.news previously reported, the Payward investment agreement expanded a relationship first outlined in March. The work combines Nasdaq’s regulated market capabilities with Payward’s crypto trading and xStocks infrastructure.
Investment in a company is one form of exposure to that development. Purchasing the native coin of a separate blockchain is another, and the economic connection between them needs to be established through actual use.
Nasdaq’s plans describe an equity token framework and links between market environments. Public companies, brokers, custodians and investors still have distinct roles even if some records move onto a blockchain.
A stock exchange matches orders. A depository and settlement system administers delivery and ownership through its participating institutions. A token network can supply part of the recordkeeping or transfer infrastructure without replacing every organisation in that chain.
Nasdaq has pursued more than one tokenisation route. The SEC’s March 18 approval order, Release No. 34-105047, covers eligible securities traded on Nasdaq and settled in tokenised form through a Depository Trust Company pilot.
Under that design, tokenised and conventional versions share an order book and execution priority when they meet the specified equivalence requirements. The approval is not a direction to convert all Nasdaq-listed shares into freely transferable public-chain assets.
The distinction separates an exchange’s trading decision from the participant’s settlement preference. An investor can obtain the same economic security while the infrastructure records delivery in a different format.
A blockchain deployment can consequently grow without creating a new speculative market for the share itself. The underlying company’s profits, distributions and governance remain separate from the technology carrying the record.
For XRP, the relevant evidence would identify a service that uses its ledger and then show whether the service requires the native coin for fees, reserves, liquidity or settlement. A reference to Nasdaq alone does not supply those steps.
Other deployments show that tokenisation is already developing through several infrastructure routes. Ondo’s October 29 DTC ecosystem announcement described the launch of DTCC’s service and the ability of eligible DTC participants to move between conventional and tokenised security entitlements.
Ondo said its CRCLon and SPYon products had earlier used backing linked to DTC tokenised entitlements. The statement concerns a specific entitlement structure, not a claim that every stock token has identical backing or rights.
A token can therefore be linked to another tokenised record within the custody chain. Counting both records as entirely separate underlying assets would overstate the financial exposure represented.
For example, if a hypothetical $100 share supports a custody entitlement and that entitlement supports a distributed token, the structure still references one $100 underlying share. Adding the two representations to produce $200 would double-count the exposure.
The legal and operational links can still create separate service requirements. Their existence does not multiply the amount of underlying stock or establish an equivalent native-coin position at each layer.
Ondo’s separate October 29 Solana portfolio launch brought seven curated portfolios to eligible investors outside the US. Each portfolio token represents an allocation built from tokenised stocks and ETFs rather than a single company’s share.
That structure creates another potential source of double counting in industry totals. The value of a portfolio token and the value of its underlying positions cannot both be added without adjusting for their relationship.
For a hypothetical portfolio holding $1 million of stock tokens, its own $1 million representation does not create an additional $1 million of underlying equities. It provides a different way for investors to own the same allocation.
The portfolio can generate rebalancing transactions and administrative work, which have their own economics. Estimating those activities requires turnover and operating rules rather than simply doubling the assets under management.
These designs provide concrete competition and complementary infrastructure for any future XRPL equity product. The relevant comparison is which functions a ledger supplies, which claims investors receive and how much operational capital the design requires.
The proposed NETs timetable is future-facing. Its eventual commercial design, participating networks and operating conditions will determine which technology providers and assets are used when the service launches.
A stock token’s legal claim comes before its blockchain label
The SEC staff’s January 28 statement on tokenised securities distinguishes issuer-sponsored products from third-party products. The latter can represent a custodial entitlement or provide synthetic exposure to another security.
The staff statement is guidance from the identified SEC divisions, not a new statute. Its taxonomy explains why two tokens linked to the same company can give holders different rights.
A share recorded through the issuer’s authorised ownership system differs from a separate claim against a business that holds shares in custody. A price-linked instrument can differ from both.
The distinction determines who owes the holder performance. It can affect voting, corporate communications, distributions, redemption and the treatment of the position if an intermediary fails.
A token’s ticker cannot settle those questions. A name resembling a listed company can describe the exposure being offered without making the token holder a directly registered shareholder of that company.
The product’s legal documents need to connect the token to the security or obligation. Investors need to know which entity issued the claim, which assets support it and which process enforces it.
A blockchain can show that an address holds a token. It cannot, by itself, establish that an offchain custodian owns the advertised shares or that a court will treat every holder in the same way.
Those arrangements remain relevant even when every onchain transaction is processed correctly. Technical execution and enforceable ownership are different parts of the product.
The commercial opportunity includes services that connect them. Transfer agents, custodians and administrators can help maintain the relationship between a token balance and the rights attached to the underlying investment.
Their fees can accrue to the companies providing those services. Whether native-token holders benefit depends on a separate demand mechanism, not simply on the legal work having been completed successfully.
XRPL’s Brazilian project begins with a second record of fund ownership
Ripple’s September 29 CSD BR announcement provides a concrete institutional use of XRPL. The initial phase mirrors ownership records for selected BTG Pactual investment-fund shares while CSD BR remains the official source of record.
CSD BR said its registered infrastructure covered more than BRL 22 trillion in assets. That figure describes the operator’s overall business, not the quantity initially represented on the public ledger.
The distinction was set out in the Brazilian fund records coverage. Treating the operator’s entire registered base as assets already moved onchain would greatly overstate the first phase.
A mirror can still perform useful work. Authorised participants can compare a shared record with their own systems and examine whether the records agree.
Recordkeeping is part of financial infrastructure even when it is not the final legal ledger. Banks and fund administrators already maintain multiple records that need reconciliation, and a common reference can change how they perform that task.
The project’s economics depend on the work actually performed. Recording ownership changes creates transactions, while merely citing the value of the fund does not show how frequently those changes occur.
A hypothetical fund worth $1 billion could have few ownership changes on a quiet day. A much smaller fund with many participants could create more ledger activity.
Asset value and transaction count therefore cannot be substituted for each other when estimating network fees. The value held in the fund is not consumed by the blockchain each time a record changes.
The first phase supplies evidence that a regulated market operator is willing to use XRPL within an existing framework. Further phases would need their own disclosures before they could be counted as live issuance, trading or cash settlement.
Investors assessing XRP’s role should follow which records move, how often they change and which accounts hold the necessary balances. The registered asset headline supplies scale for the institution, not a complete token-demand model.
The asset can move on XRPL while the cash settles through banks
Ondo’s May 6 redemption pilot involved Ripple, Mastercard and Kinexys by J.P. Morgan. The asset leg used XRPL, while the associated fiat settlement was initiated through banking infrastructure.
The transaction demonstrates coordination between systems. It does not require every dollar of the redemption to become XRP before the recipient receives bank money.
The earlier Treasury settlement coverage described the same participants but placed the transaction on June 12. Ondo’s primary announcement is dated May 6, which is the date used here.
A securities transaction can involve a tokenised asset, a communication layer and a separate cash leg. The institutions need those components to produce a valid transfer, but they do not necessarily use one currency or one ledger throughout.
A tokenised fund redemption is itself different from selling a stock to another investor. Redemption returns an investment through the product’s defined process, while secondary trading transfers the exposure to a new holder.
Both need reliable records and delivery. Their cash sources, counterparties and operating conditions can nevertheless differ, affecting which service providers are involved.
For a hypothetical $10 million redemption, describing XRPL as the asset network does not establish $10 million of native-token buying. The size of the investment and the funding required for network operation belong in different units.
If an intermediary chooses XRP as a bridge between currencies, that supplies a further use. If bank money or a stablecoin completes the cash leg, the transaction can use XRPL without that bridge position.
The implementation decides which arrangement occurs. A forecast that assumes the bridge before examining the payment route turns an optional design into an economic requirement.
A successful pilot can reduce uncertainty about coordination and timing. Repeated production transactions, disclosed commercial terms and participants’ inventory needs would provide evidence of the recurring business that follows.
XRP fee demand depends on transactions, not the value of shares
XRPL’s transaction cost documentation states that a standard transaction normally has a minimum fee of 10 drops, equivalent to 0.00001 XRP, before load adjustments. The fee is destroyed rather than paid as a dividend to XRP holders.
At that base rate, 1 million hypothetical standard transactions would destroy 10 XRP. Ten million would destroy 100 XRP, and 100 million would destroy 1,000 XRP.
These are arithmetic scenarios, not a forecast of equity trading or a claim that every securities operation uses exactly one standard transaction. Special transaction types and network load can change the cost.
At a reference price of $1.27 per XRP, the 100-million-transaction illustration would represent approximately $1,270 in fees. The computation is 100 million multiplied by 0.00001 and then by $1.27.
The example isolates fee consumption. It does not include account reserves, service charges, liquidity positions or any additional operations needed by the product.
A cheap network can be commercially attractive precisely because users do not need to spend much on fees. For a native-token valuation, low cost and large transaction value are consequently insufficient inputs on their own.
The correct denominator is activity that actually consumes the token. Dollar value transferred is useful for describing business scale but cannot be inserted directly into a fee calculation denominated per transaction.
A $100 stock transfer and a $1 million transfer can require similar basic ledger operations. Their investors have very different financial exposure while the network’s computational task can be comparable.
The same project can create several forms of activity without requiring those figures to be added together as if they were one demand total.
| Observation | Unit to measure | What it establishes |
| Securities recorded onchain | Market value of the represented securities. | The size of the asset exposure represented. |
| Ledger operations | Transactions and applicable fees. | Activity consuming network fees. |
| Operational accounts | Funded accounts and relevant objects. | Balances required under reserve settings. |
| Bridge-market activity | Executed routes and retained inventory. | The use of XRP as trading liquidity. |
A transaction can appear in more than one of these categories. Recording a security and funding its transfer are connected operations, so adding their dollar values without checking overlap can double-count activity.
A measurement period is needed as well. A balance held on one date is a stock, while transaction value across a month is a flow; comparing them can reveal turnover, but their sum is not a meaningful market size.
The fee channel is real and measurable. Its contribution needs to be calculated from transactions and applicable rates before it is compared with XRP’s supply or investment flows.
Account reserves create balances, but custody changes the account count
XRPL’s reserve documentation lists a base reserve of 1 XRP per account and a standard owner reserve of 0.2 XRP per applicable ledger object. Validators can change reserve settings through the network’s fee-voting process.
A hypothetical 1 million newly funded accounts would therefore imply 1 million XRP in base reserves at those settings. The calculation does not establish that a tokenised stock platform will create one account for each customer.
Custody architecture can change the result substantially. A provider can maintain customer records internally while holding assets through a smaller number of operational accounts, subject to its product and regulatory arrangements.
Another platform can give customers individual onchain accounts. The investor count might be identical across the two businesses while the number of ledger accounts differs.
Owner reserves require a further count of relevant objects and settings. Multiplying all customers by a single assumed number of trust lines or offers would produce an unreliable estimate if their actual activity differs.
Reserved XRP is not the same as XRP destroyed in transaction fees. The balance supports the account’s operation, and applicable rules can allow some reserves to be released when objects or accounts are removed.
The inventory nevertheless has an economic cost for the party funding it. A service provider must acquire or allocate the required amount and decide how to manage it.
Client acquisition, account consolidation and operational design therefore affect the native-token requirement. Assets under custody alone do not reveal that requirement.
A company holding $1 billion in securities across a few accounts can have a different reserve footprint from a smaller platform serving many self-custody wallets. Neither result can be inferred from the asset headline alone.
The observable evidence would include funded accounts, object counts and changes in their XRP balances. Those measurements would allow a reserve-based adoption thesis to be evaluated against actual deployments.
XRP can compete for bridge liquidity without becoming compulsory
XRPL’s auto-bridging documentation explains that token-to-token offers can route through XRP when that produces a better total exchange rate. Direct offers and bridged liquidity can be combined.
The mechanism creates an opportunity for liquidity providers holding XRP. It does not require every exchange between issued assets to take that route regardless of price.
A buyer of a stock token using a dollar token could be served by a direct market if it offered the best execution. A route through XRP could win when its combined liquidity was more competitive.
Execution quality depends on available prices and quantities. A nominally attractive quote covering only a small amount may not be the best route for the whole order.
Liquidity providers need inventory to make those prices available. How much they hold depends on transaction size, turnover, their ability to rebalance and the risk they accept while carrying positions.
A simplified illustration shows why turnover is not identical to inventory. If $1 million of inventory can be reused ten times, it can support $10 million of gross activity before considering operational limits and market risk.
Real market-making is less tidy. Purchases and sales do not arrive in perfectly balanced order, and a provider may need additional capital when prices move or customers favour one direction.
The example nevertheless prevents a common valuation error: assuming every dollar of annual settlement requires one dollar of XRP to remain permanently held. The required stock of inventory depends on the rate at which it can be used.
A competitive bridge role could create meaningful demand beyond transaction fees. Evidence would need to show actual routed volume and the associated balances, not simply the ability to configure such a route.
Stablecoins and direct markets provide alternatives inside the same tokenised ecosystem. Their growth can complement ledger use while limiting the proportion of transactions that need an XRP bridge.
Shareholder services can earn revenue without passing it to XRP holders
Ondo’s July 2 custodial securities announcement offers a separate illustration of how tokenisation connects legal ownership and investor services. It identified tokenised IVV and Micron exposure on Ethereum and a Broadridge arrangement for voting and communications.
The details show that the work extends beyond minting a token. A functioning equity product needs to account for changes in ownership, distributions and the information shareholders receive.
A listed company can declare a dividend, split its stock or ask shareholders to vote. A tokenised representation needs procedures that determine how the holder participates in each event.
If a share splits two-for-one, the record must preserve the holder’s economic entitlement through the change in quantity and price. Leaving the token count unchanged without an appropriate adjustment could break the intended relationship with the underlying exposure.
A dividend creates a cash or reinvestment process. The instrument’s terms determine whether proceeds are distributed, accumulated, converted or handled through another arrangement.
Voting requires an eligible position to be identified at the relevant time and instructions to reach the responsible party. A public wallet balance is only one input into that process when legal ownership is administered elsewhere.
Businesses providing those services can charge clients for them. The revenues may belong to an issuer, administrator, custodian, broker or technology company, depending on the contracts.
An XRP holder does not automatically receive a portion of those fees. Owning the native asset of a network is economically different from owning shares in a company selling financial infrastructure.
The same distinction applies to Ripple’s growing institutional business. BNY’s custody expansion supports XRP and RLUSD, while the commercial relationship remains separate from a claim on corporate earnings held by token owners.
There can still be a connection through demand. A provider may need XRP for operational balances or liquidity, and successful services can create additional customers using the ledger.
The connection must be expressed in the correct units. A custody fee measured as a percentage of assets does not become the same percentage of XRP supply purchased each year.
Consider a hypothetical administrator charging 0.05% annually on $1 billion of assets. That would produce $500,000 in gross annual fees for the party entitled to them, before its operating costs.
If that business used a public blockchain, the network’s native-token demand would still depend on the transaction fees, reserves and inventory required by its implementation. The $500,000 service revenue is a different financial flow.
The calculation is illustrative and uses no disclosed commercial rate from the companies in this feature. It separates the business model of a service provider from the token economics of the network it might use.
An investment case for XRP can therefore remain positive without claiming that all tokenisation revenues accrue to holders. It would rest on measured demand for the coin’s actual functions as the ecosystem grows.
The opposing case is equally specific. If most value remains in issued securities and stablecoins, while XRP balances needed for operation stay small, rapid growth in tokenised assets can coexist with limited native-token inventory demand.
Both outcomes can be assessed through disclosed production activity. Fees paid, balances retained and routes executed provide a basis for comparison that an industry-wide market-size forecast does not.
Investor controls and continuous trading remain part of the product
Institutional adoption involves more than processing transfers quickly. Products must establish who may hold them, which transfers are permitted and how exceptional events are handled.
XRPL’s authorised trust-line documentation describes issuer controls that can restrict holdings of issued tokens to approved accounts. The restriction concerns the issued asset; it does not turn XRP itself into an allow-listed token.
The ledger separately supports clawback settings for eligible issued assets when configured appropriately. XRP itself cannot be clawed back through that mechanism.
Such controls can support an issuer’s operating requirements, but technical availability is not a legal opinion. The product still needs an applicable framework for issuance, distribution and investor rights.
A network can support a compliant implementation without every token created on it being compliant. The issuer’s conduct and the instrument’s terms remain relevant.
Trading hours present another distinction. A token can transfer or trade when the underlying exchange is closed, but the supply of executable liquidity and the availability of redemption need their own operating arrangements.
Ondo’s October 27 Robinhood Chain announcement described pools connecting tokens referencing the same stocks and an additional route to liquidity while Robinhood’s own minting and redemption window was closed.
The design illustrates the problem created by multiple representations of one exposure. Prices can diverge when holders have different routes to obtain inventory or redeem a position.
Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman has described the potential to release capital tied up in collateral, while warning that continuous markets require liquidity and real-time risk controls. Her tokenisation comments frame the opportunity as infrastructure work, not simply longer trading hours.
The SEC added another regulatory route on September 17 through a conditional exemption for specified tokenised stock venues using permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The relief is temporary and conditional, rather than an unrestricted permission for every decentralised market.
The Nasdaq approval order retains T+1 settlement for the DTC-handled trades and requires an Equity Trader Alert at least 30 calendar days before trading begins under the approved design.
What to watch
Named network deployments: Identify the ledger actually selected for issuance, recordkeeping and settlement before attaching the project to XRP demand.
Product rights and eligibility: Check whether the token represents a share, a custodial entitlement or synthetic exposure, and who can hold it.
XRP balances supporting activity: Separate fees destroyed, account reserves and liquidity-provider inventory in any demand estimate.
Direct versus bridged trading: Look for executed routes and balances showing whether XRP wins liquidity against stablecoin or direct-token alternatives.
Nasdaq’s launch notices: Compare future operating announcements with the proposed second-quarter 2027 NETs timetable and the separate DTC-linked framework.
FAQ
Has Nasdaq announced that it will use XRP for tokenised equities?
The examined Nasdaq announcement identifies Payward’s xStocks ecosystem and a proposed NETs launch in the second quarter of 2027. It does not establish an XRP settlement requirement or a Nasdaq–XRPL deployment.
Is a stock token always the same as owning the underlying share?
No. The legal structure can represent an issuer-sponsored share, a custodial entitlement or a different security providing price exposure. Voting, redemption and intermediary risk depend on the product’s terms.
Does every dollar tokenised on XRPL become demand for XRP?
No. Asset value, fees, reserves and trading inventory are different quantities. A dollar-denominated security can use the ledger without its full value being purchased or held in XRP.
How much XRP would 1 million standard transactions consume?
At the minimum reference fee of 0.00001 XRP, the arithmetic result is 10 XRP. Actual costs depend on transaction types and network load.
Do more investors necessarily create one XRPL account each?
No. A custody provider’s architecture can use fewer operational accounts while recording customers internally. Reserve demand depends on actual accounts and relevant ledger objects.
Must a stock token trade through XRP to reach a stablecoin?
No. Auto-bridging can use XRP when the route improves execution, while direct offers can compete. Actual routed volume would show how much business uses the bridge.
Are all CSD BR assets already on XRPL?
No. The initial project concerns selected fund-share records, while the operator’s BRL 22 trillion figure describes its registered infrastructure. Its own system remains the official record in the first phase.
What would demonstrate meaningful XRP demand from tokenised equities?
Disclosed live deployments, recurring activity and measurable holdings for fees, reserves or liquidity would provide evidence. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of November 4, 2026. Legal questions should be discussed with qualified counsel.
Leave feedback about this