The New York Stock Exchange has reignited the tokenization debate after signaling plans to explore blockchain-based infrastructure, but not everyone is convinced the initiative is as groundbreaking as it sounds.
Among the most vocal critics is Omid Malekan, who argues that the proposal currently looks more like a branding exercise than a concrete technological shift.
Key Takeaways
The NYSE tokenization plan remains vague, with no clear information on blockchain infrastructure, governance, or economics.
Omid Malekan argues that tokenization conflicts with the NYSE’s centralized market structure.
Crypto veterans see the announcement as familiar, warning it could repeat past TradFi blockchain experiments that failed to deliver real change.
Malekan’s critique cuts to the heart of a long-running tension between traditional finance and crypto-native systems: tokenization promises a fundamentally new market structure, yet it is being proposed by institutions built on the exact opposite principles.
Big Vision, Missing Foundations
While the NYSE announcement has been welcomed by some as a sign of Wall Street embracing blockchain, Malekan points out that the plan is light on substance. Core architectural questions remain unanswered, including what blockchain would be used, how settlement would work, and whether the system would operate in a permissioned or open environment.
These omissions matter, especially since the exchange has openly acknowledged that it is seeking regulatory clarity. From Malekan’s perspective, regulators cannot evaluate a tokenized market without understanding the underlying technology, economic incentives, and jurisdictional scope. The lack of specificity, he suggests, raises doubts about how far along the project actually is.
A Structural Clash With Crypto’s Core Ideas
At the center of the critique is a deeper structural argument. The NYSE, operated by Intercontinental Exchange, is a centuries-old institution whose business model depends on centralized control, delayed settlement, and regulatory protections. Tokenization, by contrast, is designed around near-instant settlement, composability, and radically different risk assumptions.
Malekan argues that these are not superficial differences. Tokenized markets require new technical skills, new compliance frameworks, and often entirely new revenue models. Trying to graft this architecture onto a traditional exchange may sound innovative, but historically, such hybrid attempts struggle to deliver meaningful change.
Why Build This At All?
Another point of friction is necessity. Malekan questions why a tokenized NYSE product is even needed when decentralized finance already offers global, programmable markets that settle in real time. In his view, any system that preserves heavy gatekeeping, opaque fee structures, and restricted access risks becoming a weaker version of what already exists onchain.
Because ICE is a for-profit entity, the economics also matter. Fees, custody rules, and participant access will ultimately determine whether the platform resembles an open financial network or simply a token-branded extension of existing infrastructure.
A Familiar Pattern for Crypto Veterans
For long-time participants in the digital asset space, Malekan’s skepticism echoes past cycles. Over the years, multiple traditional finance firms have announced ambitious blockchain initiatives, only to quietly scale them back or abandon them once the complexity becomes apparent.
In that context, the professor frames the NYSE announcement as part of a recurring narrative: bold promises, limited execution, and eventual disappointment for those expecting transformative change. While he acknowledges that success would be positive for the broader financial system, he views it as statistically unlikely given institutional incentives and historical precedent.
