Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has argued that correlated tokenized-asset pools could move automated market makers into global finance after 10 stock-SPY pools processed $33 million in 12 days.
Uniswap founder Hayden Adams, in an Aug. 18 blog post, said tokenization could change which trading pairs attract liquidity and who supplies the capital behind them.
Correlated pairs are playing out beautifully
Top 5 tokenized SPY pairs are “bridge” pairs to other common base pairs
From there its mostly correlated tokenized stocks
Global, programmable, cheap, 24/7/365 https://t.co/CK4t1s0yEN pic.twitter.com/5yH8f9CIE9
— Hayden Adams 🦄 (@haydenzadams) September 3, 2026
Adams has spent nine years working in decentralized finance and created Uniswap in 2018. The protocol has operated through smart contracts since its launch and has processed more than $4.6 trillion in cumulative volume, according to his post.
During the same period, decentralized exchanges increased their share of centralized-exchange spot volume from below 1% to more than 20%, Adams said. He attributed part of that expansion to automated market makers opening markets for assets that could not attract professional trading firms.
Correlated pairs could reduce market-making risk
Unlike an order-book exchange, an automated market maker lets users place two assets into a shared pool. Traders swap against the pool, prices change according to its programmed rules, and liquidity providers collect part of the trading fees.
Adams said AMMs first found demand among small and less-traded tokens because issuers and early holders could create a pool without hiring a professional market maker. Stablecoin pools followed because assets such as USDC and USDT usually move closely together, limiting the inventory changes faced by passive liquidity providers.
According to Adams, onchain markets have since organized into clusters without a central party deciding their structure. Ethereum-based tokens commonly trade against ETH, Solana assets trade against SOL, and stablecoins form pools with other stablecoins.
“No one designed that. It emerged organically,” Adams wrote.
His argument rests on the relationship between the two assets in a liquidity pool. When their prices move in similar directions, liquidity providers face less risk from holding both sides of the pair. Adams said lower inventory risk can attract more capital, deepen liquidity, and reduce the performance advantage enjoyed by active trading firms.
Traditional market makers usually hedge price exposure through options or other instruments, which adds costs. Investors who already want to own both assets may not need the same hedge, allowing them to accept lower returns while continuing to provide liquidity, according to Adams.
Tokenized SPY pools create a bridge to individual stocks
Tokenized securities can allow stocks and funds to trade directly against each other on a shared blockchain rather than requiring every transaction to settle against dollars.
Using Nvidia as an example, Adams said an NVDA-SPY pool could replace part of the activity normally routed through NVDA-USD. SPY would then connect the stock pool to dollars through a separate SPY-USD market.
Under that model, the individual stock and the index fund would form the correlated pair, while SPY-USD would act as a bridge. Passive liquidity providers could serve pools holding related assets, while professional firms compete in the smaller number of bridge markets that carry concentrated trading volume.
Automatic routing would still let an investor enter or leave a position in dollars. The trade could move through more than one pool in the background without requiring the user to exchange each asset manually.
Adams pointed to 10 tokenized stocks trading against tokenized SPY through Uniswap pools on Robinhood Chain. During their first 12 days, the pools handled $33 million in volume from more than 11,000 traders, with part of the activity occurring while U.S. stock exchanges were closed.
Some transactions moved directly from one tokenized stock to another without using dollars, he added. Adams presented the activity as an early example of related assets forming direct markets once they share the same settlement network.
More unusual pools have also appeared. According to his post, some memecoins have been paired with stocks linked by a common theme, including Elon Musk-themed tokens against Tesla and hot dog-themed tokens against Costco. Adams cautioned that the price correlation in such pools remains uncertain.
Uniswap v4 expands how liquidity pools operate
Technical changes to Uniswap could determine whether passive pools can compete in markets that require more complex trading rules.
Uniswap v4 introduced hooks, which allow developers to add custom functions to a pool. Adams cited DualPool, a hook designed to place unused liquidity into lending markets between swaps, as one way to improve returns for liquidity providers.
Permissioned pools provide another route for tokenized assets that must enforce eligibility or transfer controls. Under such a structure, programmed checks can limit who trades a regulated asset while the pool continues to use an AMM for execution.
In July, Uniswap governance expanded its fee system to v4 pools across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, OP Mainnet, and Robinhood Chain. As crypto.news previously reported, the change raised daily protocol revenue from about $114,000 to $325,000.
The report found that Uniswap processed $27.6 billion in April 2026 volume and generated an estimated $845 million in annual fees across its versions and networks. Roughly one-sixth of those fees were being captured by the protocol through TokenJar contracts used for UNI purchases and burns.
Adams said correlated pairs represent only one part of the AMM model. Pool design, capital costs, and the ability to handle regulated assets will also affect whether automated liquidity can compete with firms that operate proprietary trading, hedging, and settlement systems.
U.S. rules will determine access to tokenized stocks
For American investors, a token that follows a stock price does not always provide direct ownership of the underlying share. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in January that tokenized securities can be issued by the company itself or created by an unrelated third party, with different legal structures attached to each model.
Issuer-backed tokens may update the company’s official shareholder record when the blockchain asset moves. A third-party token could instead provide an indirect claim, a custodial interest, or economic exposure that does not make its holder a registered shareholder.
The distinction affects voting rights, dividends, corporate actions, and claims during insolvency. In August, the SEC began preparing a limited route for 24/7 tokenized trading, although the commission has not finalized eligibility standards or an implementation date.
Nasdaq received SEC approval in March 2026 for a pilot covering eligible Russell 1000 shares and major index-linked exchange-traded funds. Under its approved structure, the tokenized and conventional forms carry the same rights and pricing within the national market system.
Ownership infrastructure remains another part of the U.S. regulatory work. In September, the SEC proposed a transfer-agent rule overhaul covering digital records, cybersecurity, business continuity, and the protection of investor assets.
Transfer agents maintain the official list of security owners and process changes involving dividends, stock splits, and other corporate actions. The SEC said firms are developing blockchain-based ownership systems, tokenized fund services and smart-contract processes, but described its proposal as technology-neutral.
Traditional market operators are also building systems for onchain securities. Intercontinental Exchange agreed in August to invest in tZERO and use its blockchain patents while developing an NYSE-affiliated platform. The ICE-tZERO partnership covers digital transfer-agent and broker-dealer infrastructure for issuing, trading, and settling public securities onchain.
ICE and tZERO did not disclose the investment amount, tZERO’s valuation, or a launch schedule. The proposed platform still requires regulatory approvals before it can offer continuous trading and blockchain settlement.
