Competition in tokenized stocks is shifting away from how many assets can be brought on-chain and toward a simpler question: where can those assets actually trade. Data cited by Cowlpane from Crypto Briefing points to Backpack Securities as a notable example. In Solana’s tokenized stock market, Backpack holds only about 5% of token supply, yet it accounts for roughly 73% of issuer-level DEX volume.
That gap suggests the platform’s edge is not primarily issuance scale. The article ties it to liquidity.
How 5% of supply translated into 73% of trading volume
For traders, the fact that an asset exists on-chain is only part of the story. What shapes execution is whether the book is deep enough, whether spreads are tight, and whether a larger order moves the market too much.
According to the report, Backpack’s advantage comes mainly from the Sunrise liquidity protocol and a proprietary automated market maker model called propAMM. A standard DeFi AMM usually lets any user deposit capital into a pool, with pricing determined by the asset ratio inside that pool. propAMM is described as closer to professional market making: specific liquidity providers manage capital and quotes in a more concentrated way, with the aim of improving capital efficiency and delivering deeper liquidity with tighter bid-ask spreads.
Data cited in the original piece shows that, in some measurement periods, propAMM contributed about 71% of Backpack’s trading volume. The article presents that as evidence that tokenized stocks are already showing clear liquidity concentration.
The mechanism is straightforward. Deeper liquidity lowers slippage and trading costs. That attracts more traders. Volume then concentrates further, which can improve market-making efficiency again. Backpack’s share of trading, far above its share of supply, is framed as a result of that feedback loop.
This matters even more for tokenized equities because the underlying assets already trade in mature traditional markets. If the on-chain version comes with wider spreads and weaker liquidity, putting the asset on-chain by itself does not give traders much reason to move. A competitive product still has to solve a long-standing exchange problem: how to match buyers and sellers at the lowest possible cost.
Flagship assets are driving activity, and concentration cuts both ways
Backpack’s volume is not evenly spread across all tokenized stocks. The article highlights SPCX, which represents SpaceX equity exposure, as the clearest case.
According to the cited data, SPCX at one point captured the vast majority of DEX volume among SpaceX-related tokenized assets on Solana. Tokenized products tied to Micron Technology (MU) also secured a very large share of trading within their category.
That points to a familiar market pattern: once a venue combines popular assets with better liquidity, trading can move quickly toward a single platform. The article also notes that SpaceX remains a private company, meaning ordinary investors cannot buy its shares directly through public stock markets. Products that offer related economic exposure and also support stronger secondary-market liquidity are naturally more likely to draw attention.
Still, the same structure creates dependence. When a large portion of trading rests on a small number of flagship assets, total platform volume becomes more sensitive to changes in demand for those names. If interest in SpaceX-linked trading cools, or if competing venues launch stronger products, Backpack’s current share of volume may not persist on its own.
For that reason, the article argues that Backpack’s data should not be read too simply as a broad explosion in tokenized stock demand. A more precise reading is that trading demand is concentrating heavily in a small set of popular assets and a small set of high-liquidity venues.
Redemption adds a price anchor that many crypto tokens do not have
The report also points to redemption as another important design feature.
Some tokenized stocks on Backpack are not priced only through market narrative. Holders can redeem them for corresponding underlying value under the product rules. The article says that sets them apart from ordinary meme coins and from purely synthetic assets.
If an on-chain token trades materially away from the value of the asset it tracks, redemption and arbitrage can, in theory, push traders to buy the undervalued side or sell the overvalued side until prices move closer again. In that sense, redemption gives the on-chain asset an additional price anchor.
For traders, that can reduce the risk that the token price drifts too far from the underlying asset for too long. For market makers, a clearer reference price can make inventory management and quoting easier. The article suggests this may be another reason Backpack has been able to keep attracting liquidity.
Viewed this way, tokenized stocks need more than a token wrapper around an equity. They also need a mapping to the underlying asset, a redemption path, price discovery, and secondary-market liquidity. Leave out any one of those pieces, and it becomes difficult to build a mature market.
The next phase may be decided by market structure, not listing count
At the broader ecosystem level, the article describes Solana as one of the most active venues for on-chain trading in tokenized stocks. Data cited in the piece shows that, in some periods, Solana accounted for the vast majority of all-chain tokenized stock DEX volume. Lower fees and higher throughput make it better suited to on-chain securities trading where execution costs matter.
Even so, the Backpack case suggests chain performance is only the base layer. What ultimately determines where volume settles is market microstructure.
For issuers, that changes the competitive playbook. The next step may not be to launch more stock tokens for the sake of count. If newly issued assets lack depth, users still cannot trade them effectively. By contrast, capital directed toward professional market making, redemption rails, and liquidity infrastructure may produce a more immediate network effect.
The article’s broader conclusion is that Backpack’s 5% share of supply versus 73% share of volume matters less as a headline ratio than as a sign of where the market is heading. Tokenized stocks may be moving out of an on-chain issuance race and into a liquidity race. The venues that can offer deeper markets, lower trading friction, and a more credible link between on-chain prices and off-chain asset values are more likely to become the places where capital stays and trades.