The inevitable trend in the rise of equity coins

Author:Matty

_Other Organiser

IN NOVEMBER 2025, AFTER MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OF UNI AIRDROPSUniswap finally started the fee switch。

The process has been protracted and repeated over the years, even in 2024, with an extremely embarrassing scene: a `stakeholder' (who is widely regarded as an equity investor) came to block a proposal that should have been given back to currency holders. Nevertheless, the United Nations proposal was finally adopted with more than 62 million votes。

THE FACT THAT, AS THE LARGEST DEX IN ENCRYPTION, IT TOOK SO LONG TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REWARD ITS TOKEN HOLDERS IS ENOUGH TO SHOW THE CURRENT SITUATIONEquity and currency relationsSTATUS. ALTHOUGH THE UNI TOKEN HOLDER “OWNS” THE AGREEMENT IN THEORY, IT CAN ONLY SEE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE EQUITY INVESTOR TO OBTAIN ALL THE VALUE FROM THE FRONT-END COSTS。

Although Uniswap is a typical representative of the divide between equity and currency, the problem has worsened for many years, affecting almost every agreement that generates income on a continuous basis。Shareholders and currency holders often compete for the same value poolIt operates under fundamentally different legal, governance and economic frameworks。

The solutions proposed within the industry range from the total elimination of shares and the transfer of all ownership to the chain to another extreme - the total abandonment of tokens. Both approaches have their supporters, but they also have significant shortcomings。

Extreme route one: total deequity

The complete elimination of equity and the transfer of all ownership concepts to the chain is undoubtedly a theoretical solution. In this vision, smart contracts replace shareholder agreements, chain balances replace equity tables and governance tokens replace board voting。

Immediate settlement. Transparent ownership. Why not

One major issue is:Unless the assets, operations and customers of the enterprise are fully linkedThe court system under the chain will always be the final arbiter for the resolution of disputesI don't know. You can try to get all of your sub-contracts and protocols quoted in logic, but it still doesn't change a fact -- - The court under the chain is the arbiter. Not everything is within your control to move to the chain。

FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN OWN A TOKENIZED REAL ESTATE ISSUED BY AN INTELLIGENT CONTRACT, NFT, WHICH STATES THAT I OWN THE CORRESPONDING PROPERTY, BUT IF THE TITLE DEEDS UNDER THE CHAIN OF THE LAND ARE DIFFERENT, GOOD LUCK SHOWING YOUR NFT WHEN THE SHERIFF ARRIVES AT THE EVICTION NOTICE. (EMPHASIZING ONCE AGAIN THAT YOU CAN TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE UNDERLYING TITLE DEEDS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF THE CHAIN, THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE CHAIN HAS PRIORITY)。

The “no-equity, net currency” approach applies only to a small number of projects:

Networks and protocols on the complete chain, such as bitcoin, some public chains and fully autonomous DeFi. These projects have no company, no employees, no servers and no external dependence. After all, that's the original beauty of bitcoin! A system that cannot be reviewed and assets that cannot be confiscated。

This, however, is not feasible for the vast majority of projects (and the vast majority of potential chain activities). Web2 and Web2.5 owned assets, customers, payments and operations under the chain。

Extreme route two: complete de-currencyization

At another extreme of the spectrum, some projects (in fact the vast majority of companies) decided to abandon the token altogether. They raise equity, build products and avoid all the headaches that a token can bring — and at the same time sacrifice all the benefits。

• Benefits:NO TOKEN MEANS NO SEC KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR. DON'T WORRY WHETHER THE GOVERNANCE TOKEN IS SECURITIES. THERE IS NO NEED TO DESIGN TOKEN ECONOMICS, WORRY ABOUT EMISSIONS OR EXPLAIN REPURCHASE MECHANISMS。

• Cost:Abandon immediate settlement, transparent ownership records, cost-efficiency gains and the ability to coordinate incentives for the global community。

Traditional equity transfers are expensive, settlement is slow and most potential investors are inaccessible. Access to private start-ups remains expensive, inefficient and non-transparent. Even in 2026, the process required to trade open shares was old compared to DeFi。

Despite its shortcomings, tokens have the potential to address them. They make..Community ownershipandUser-owned productsBe possible. The total abandonment of this point is a step backwards。

In order to find the best balance between these two extremes, we need to know what shares provide for something that cannot be provided by a token。

What does equity and tokens provide

1. Legal rights and recourse

When you have a stake, you have legal status. You can sue, enforce rights. In the case of a breach of fiduciary responsibility or fraud by a director, there is an established legal framework within which loss can be recovered。

There are few legally recognized rights or protections for token holders (except in very few cases). They often only hope that the market will save their investment。

While in theory the entire budget of the company could be placed in the chain, allowing the founders, in the absence of legal rights, to put every decision to the vote of shareholders would introduce a large amount of operational inefficiencies and run counter to the original intent of the investment — to trust the vision and capabilities of the team。

2. Formal governance control

Shareholders elect boards, approve major transactions and have the right to codify. By contrast, governance tokens are often given to peopleThe illusion of controlI don't know。

As Vitalik notes, there are serious deficiencies in the governance of tokens: low turnout (<10 per cent), whale manipulation and lack of expertise. More often, the chain of governance has deteriorated to a “de-centre theatre”, and teams can often ignore voting if they do not like the results, as implementation still requires manual work。

3. Legal clarity of value accumulation

In M&A activities, equity holders have a clear legal right to receive the proceeds. As recent Tensor and Axelar cases have shown, token holders are often completely abandoned, even if the project has been acquired。

As a result of this strong legal right to profit-sharing, stocks are more reliably traded on the basis of a multiple of expected future profits. The valuation of tokens, on the other hand, is often purely speculative and unsupported。

Even if the project generated revenue, most projects would not reliably channel revenue to currency holders because of regulatory risks and conflicts of fiduciary responsibilities. While a chain agreement could be built to simulate such a right, it was far less reliable than the legal basis for equity。

4. Wider and deeper investor pools

In short, the investor pool and total purchasing power of the equity market is much greater than that of the currency market。

• The value of the United States stock market alone is the entire encryption industry20 timesI don't know。

• The value of the global stock market is in encryption46 times moreI don't know。
  

Projects that choose tokens over equity actually only come into contact with the potential purchasing power that they could have accessed2-5%I don't know。

2026: Year of equity-type tokens

One thing is certain: from monetization equity to new forms of chain governance, 2026 will be a year of equity-type token innovation and experimentation。

DTC PILOT PROJECT(to be launched in the second half of 2026) will be the first time that the United States will allow participants to hold shares in tokenized securities on block chains. This represents a shift in the infrastructure backbone of the capital markets of the United States to the chain:

• NasdaqTrading in tokenized securities is proposed。

• SecuritizeProvision of real and open shares with full legal ownership in the chain。

• CantrifugeWE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DECORATING THE EQUITY THROUGH REGISTERED SEC AGENTS。

The integration of traditional financial infrastructure with the block chain tracks is no longer a dream — it is happening。

The five-year journey of Uniswap to the cost switch is a warning for the encrypted original project. The split between shares and tokens will not be automatically resolved. It requires deliberate design, clear agreements and structures to resolve conflicts of interest。

ULTIMATELY, THIS DIVERGENCE STEMS FROM REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY AND THE ABSENCE OF A LEGAL FRAMEWORK. WHETHER THROUGH THE SEC'S “ENCRYPTED PROJECT” OR THE CLARITY ACT, THE UNITED STATES EXPECTS TO HAVE THE LONG-AWAITED REGULATORY CERTAINTY AS EARLY AS JANUARY THIS YEAR。

By the end of this year, we will no longer discuss equity and tokens. We'll discuss itOwnership- Transparent, transferable, legally protected and digitizedOwnershipI don't know。