Tokenization can make the same equity available across several crypto venues, but that does not make those markets equally liquid.

That difference showed up in a July 16 test of a $100K tokenized NVDA purchase. During US market hours, the test found a 24x spread in slippage between Jupiter and Bybit. A trader could therefore pay far more for the same stock exposure simply by choosing a different venue.

But the price gap tells only part of the story. Bybit was cheaper because one large resting order absorbed almost the entire purchase. On Binance, the same trade moved through 53 smaller orders at progressively higher prices. Bybit delivered the better price, while Binance’s liquidity was distributed more broadly across its order book.

Time mattered as well. Trading continued after the US market closed, but execution became more expensive on both centralized venues. Bybit’s advantage narrowed as the front of its order book thinned, while the onchain route remained consistently expensive.

Two order-book snapshots cannot establish a permanent venue ranking. They do illustrate the larger challenge: tokenization can make an equity accessible in more places, but every venue must still build the depth and resilience needed to trade it efficiently.

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。