A quiet fight between two of the most powerful names in finance burst into the open last week. In
a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Citadel Securities complained that crypto interests are poised to damage the U.S. stock market and harm consumer protections with a pell-mell rush into decentralized finance (DeFi). The firm didn’t directly say who it regards as responsible for this state of affairs—but it’s enough to guess from the footnotes, which refer to the venture giant Andreessen Horowitz more than 10 times.
The source of the dispute is the
fast-growing world of tokenized equities, which let users trade shares of popular companies but in a blockchain wrapper. The likes of Robinhood, Kraken, and even
BlackRock are all dabbling in this technology, whose advantages include easy 24/7 trading and instant settlement. Holding stock on a blockchain also reduces middlemen, and expands opportunities to deploy equity-based collateral.
So what’s not to like? According to Citadel, the problem is DeFi platforms like Uniswap. Right now, traders use them to swap billions of dollars of crypto every day—and soon large volumes of tokenized
Nvidia or
Apple stock could be sloshing around these platforms, too. And if the SEC grants certain exemptions that Andreessen and its DeFi allies are seeking, Uniswap and others will get to operate as de facto brokerages—without taking on the legal responsibilities that go with that. These include displaying the price of every trade or ensuring customers get the best price. Citadel also warns of “fragmenting liquidity” as stock investing gets split between two parallel systems.
In response to the letter, the founder of Uniswap (one of Andreessen’s blue-ribbon portfolio companies)
took to
X to accuse Citadel of slandering DeFi in order to protect its lucrative role as the “king of shady tradfi market makers.” Other prominent names in crypto piled on as well, accusing the firm of trying to smother innovation.
At first glance, it appears both sides have a point. If tokenized stock trading breaks into the mainstream, it would threaten Citadel’s business model of paying firms like Robinhood for their orders and using that volume to make trading profits. So the company’s letter to the SEC is clearly based in self-interest. That said, Citadel’s concerns about liquidity are not unreasonable—if the pool of U.S. stocks is divided into two separate pools, doesn’t that make trading more expensive for everyone? Likewise, it’s fair to ask if the SEC would be wise to grant exemptions on investor protection rules that have historically served the public very well.
In reading the letter, it’s remarkable to read its claims that the likes of automated AMMs, block builders, validators and layer 2 blockchains are basically brokerages—less for the argument itself, than that Citadel and the SEC are discussing this stuff at all. It wasn’t long ago when only a handful of crypto diehards knew what these terms even meant. Now, they have become mainstream enough to be part of a non-crypto firm’s correspondence with the SEC, and there is no doubt they’re here to stay.
As for which side is going to prevail, it’s worth noting the fight pits two of the most powerful firms in the country against each other. On one side, there is Citadel, which is owned by Ken Griffin, one of the richest and most combative people in the country. On the other is Andreessen, an influential VC firm that doubles as a PR firm and lobbying agency with immense clout in Washington, DC. For now, it feels Griffin may be able to slow down the spread of tokenized equities but, as with any superior technology, he will be unable to stop it.
Jeff John Roberts jeff.roberts@fortune.com@jeffjohnroberts 
