Tokenized stocks are rapidly moving from the story of "assets on-chain" toward more traditional competition over market structure.

Over the past two years, the industry's focus has often been on how many stocks can be tokenized, how many companies can be covered, and on which blockchains they are issued. But as products multiply, a new question begins to emerge: once issued, where can they actually be traded?

Backpack's data provides a sample worth watching.

According to Cowlpane citing Crypto Briefing data, Backpack Securities accounts for only about 5% of the token supply in the Solana tokenized stock market, yet handles about 73% of issuer-level DEX trading volume.

In other words, it is not the platform that issues the most assets, yet it captures most of the trading.

What this reflects may not be token issuance capability, but a more traditional financial market issue—liquidity.

With 5% of the supply, why can it generate 73% of the trading volume?

For traders, whether an asset "exists" is not the most important thing.

What truly affects the trading experience is whether the order book is deep enough, whether the bid-ask spread is small enough, and whether a relatively large trade will noticeably move the price.

Backpack's advantages mainly come from the Sunrise liquidity protocol and a model known as propAMM (proprietary automated market maker).

Traditional DeFi AMMs typically allow any user to provide funds to a liquidity pool, with an algorithm quoting prices based on the ratio of assets in the pool. propAMM, by contrast, is closer to professional market making: specific liquidity providers centrally manage funds and quotes to improve capital efficiency and, as much as possible, provide deeper liquidity and tighter spreads.

According to data cited in the original article, propAMM contributed roughly 71% of Backpack's trading volume during certain statistical periods.

This creates a typical positive liquidity feedback loop: deeper liquidity → lower slippage and trading costs → more traders enter → trading volume becomes further concentrated → market-making efficiency continues to improve.

This is also why Backpack, even with only a small share of token supply, can still achieve trading volume far exceeding its supply share.

For tokenized stocks, this is especially important. Because stocks themselves already have mature traditional trading markets. If the on-chain version has noticeably wider spreads and noticeably worse liquidity, then "going on-chain" alone is not enough to make traders migrate.

A truly competitive product ultimately still needs to solve a problem that traditional exchanges have been solving for decades: how to let buyers and sellers transact at the lowest possible cost.

SpaceX becomes a traffic center, but concentration is also a risk

Backpack's current trading volume is not evenly distributed across all stock tokens. The most typical example is SPCX, which represents equity exposure to SpaceX.

According to data in the original article, SPCX at one point accounted for the vast majority of DEX trading volume in SpaceX-related tokenized assets on Solana; the tokenized product for Micron Technology (MU) also captured an extremely high share of trading volume among similar assets.

This shows that once a platform has both popular assets and better liquidity, trading volume can quickly concentrate toward a single venue.

This is especially true because SpaceX is still a private company, and ordinary investors cannot directly buy its shares through traditional public stock markets. Therefore, any product that can provide related economic exposure while also having strong secondary-market liquidity is naturally more likely to attract attention.

But this structure also has another side.

When a large volume of transactions relies on a few flagship assets, the platform's overall trading volume also becomes more susceptible to changes in the popularity of a single asset. If demand for SpaceX-related trading cools, or if other platforms launch more competitive products, the current high trading share may not naturally continue.

Therefore, rather than simply interpreting Backpack's current data as a "surge in demand for tokenized stocks," a more accurate understanding may be: trading demand is becoming highly concentrated in a few popular assets and a few high-liquidity venues.

Redemption mechanism creates a fundamental difference between tokenized stocks and ordinary crypto tokens

Another notable design is the redemption mechanism.

Some of Backpack's tokenized stocks do not rely solely on market narrative to maintain their prices; instead, they allow holders to redeem the corresponding underlying value according to product rules. This creates a clear distinction between them and ordinary Meme Coins or pure synthetic assets.

If a token's on-chain price significantly deviates from the value of its corresponding asset, redemption and arbitrage mechanisms can theoretically prompt traders to buy undervalued assets or sell overvalued assets, thereby bringing the two prices back together.

Therefore, the redemption mechanism effectively adds a layer of price anchoring to on-chain assets. For traders, this reduces the risk of "on-chain token prices completely detaching from the underlying asset"; for market makers, a clearer price benchmark also helps manage inventory and quotations.

This may also be one of the reasons Backpack can continue to attract liquidity. What tokenized stocks truly need to solve is not just "turning a stock into a Token," but how to simultaneously establish: underlying asset mapping, redemption mechanisms, price discovery, and secondary market liquidity. Without any one of these links, it is difficult to form a truly mature trading market.

In the next stage of tokenized stocks, the competition may not be about the number of issuances

From a broader market perspective, Solana has become one of the most active ecosystems for on-chain trading of tokenized stocks.

The original article cited data showing that in some statistical periods, Solana accounted for the vast majority of DEX trading volume for tokenized stocks across all chains. Low transaction fees and relatively high throughput make it more suitable for on-chain securities trading that is highly sensitive to transaction costs.

But Backpack's case further demonstrates that public chain performance is only infrastructure; what truly determines where trading volume ultimately flows is still market microstructure.

For issuers, this means future competition may no longer be just about "issuing a few more stock Tokens." If a large number of assets are issued without depth, users still cannot trade effectively; by contrast, directing capital into professional market making, redemption channels, and liquidity infrastructure may instead generate more direct network effects.

From this perspective, Backpack accounts for only about 5% of supply yet captures about 73% of trading volume. What is truly worth watching is not this ratio itself, but the trend behind it: tokenized stocks have already begun to move from an "asset on-chain race" into a "liquidity race."

Whoever can provide deeper markets, lower trading friction, and a more credible mechanism connecting on-chain and off-chain prices may become the place where capital truly stays and trades.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia