Recently, the Nasdaq Stock Exchange officially submitted an application to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, requesting permission to trade stocks, ETFs, and other assets in a tokenized form on the exchange.

If this application is approved, Nasdaq will need a token trading platform to implement this functionality. Since Nasdaq currently does not have such a token trading platform, a heated debate has arisen online:

One faction believes that Nasdaq will most likely build this trading platform on Ethereum or a layer two solution of Ethereum.

The other faction has expressed significant emotions regarding this "aspiration," arguing that these Ethereum maximalists are being overly presumptuous and self-righteous.

In my view, it is entirely possible that Nasdaq may not adopt Ethereum or a layer two solution; it could very well build its own layer one blockchain (L1) to support its ecosystem.

This is similar to how many top-tier projects are continuously building their own L1s.

Vitalik once summarized the impossible triangle of blockchain: decentralization, security, and scalability. This means that a blockchain cannot simultaneously possess all three elements; at most, it can only have two at the same time.

In real-world cases, the most common combinations of these three elements are two:

One is to maintain decentralization and security while sacrificing scalability;

The other is to maintain security and scalability while sacrificing decentralization.

Therefore, if we approach this purely from a rational perspective, which combination a blockchain chooses among the two above entirely depends on what goals it aims to achieve.

If it aims to build a platform that can avoid single points of failure, be free from unilateral interference, and support a complex application ecosystem, it must choose decentralization and security, sacrificing scalability to some extent.

If it aims to serve a specific niche or user group and particularly values user experience, it will likely choose security and scalability while sacrificing decentralization. It is worth noting that in real-world cases, blockchains that choose this goal may superficially appear to sacrifice only decentralization, but often compromise on stability and sustainability as well.

Using this impossible triangle to assess Nasdaq's token trading platform, it is relatively easy to determine its choice:

The trading platform that Nasdaq needs is a typical RWA application platform. The purpose of such a platform is certainly not the first; its applications do not require decentralization and must embrace centralization tightly, as every action it takes is under the supervision of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. If it were to violate SEC regulations, I would not be surprised if its platform were ordered to suspend operations.

Therefore, its goal is certainly the second one.

As for what specific technical solution it might choose, that entirely depends on business judgment and cost considerations.

If it chooses to build its platform on Ethereum or a layer two solution based on Ethereum, it aims to leverage the security and stability provided by Ethereum, saving on construction costs and future maintenance costs, but it will have to give up a portion of its profits to Ethereum.

If it chooses another blockchain or even builds its own L1 and constructs its platform on it, it aims to have more flexible control over the platform and monopolize all the profits from it, but it will have to pay a significant price and cost for that.

In fact, Nasdaq's application could completely function without blockchain, just like Binance operates a high-performance CEX exchange. If Binance can trade tokens, so can it; if Binance can trade 24/7, so can it.

I believe the reason it will use blockchain technology is simply to utilize the token standards and smart contract implementations within blockchain technology to facilitate cross-chain transfers with other blockchain platforms.

Some other RWA platforms we have seen recently (such as Robinhood's L2, etc.) have chosen Ethereum's layer two solutions mainly for commercial considerations, hoping to save on the costs required for security and to build the platform as quickly as possible to generate revenue.

For them, the question of whether to decentralize is actually not a concern at all.

However, I have always believed that the most active and disruptive applications in this ecosystem will definitely emerge on decentralized platforms.

We are scheduled for an online discussion on September 13, 2025 (this Saturday) at 7:30 PM.

Last time, we could not have the discussion due to network issues. This time, I will try to choose a good network. I suggest that if anyone has questions and is worried about not being able to communicate online at that time, please try to post your questions in the comments of this post.

https://x.com/Dao_Views/status/1964855926403612862

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。