In early 2021, an army of retail traders made massive bets on meme stocks and briefly melted down the market. Trading volume swelled to such a huge extent that popular brokerage Robinhood had to halt buy orders for stocks like GameStop for a few days in order to escape a liquidity crisis. At the time, the situation led to claims of a conspiracy, but the reason for the meltdown was more mundane: Wall Street’s creaky infrastructure could not settle trades fast enough.
Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev and others called for an overhaul, and since then there has already been progress, as stock trades now settle a day sooner than in 2021. But the financial industry is also pushing ahead with a more radical solution: turning stocks into digital assets that can be traded and settled instantly on a blockchain.
It is not just crypto firms and fintech players leading this charge for “tokenization.” Big banks like J.P. Morgan are also using blockchains to facilitate trades in certain assets and, in doing so, transforming the financial ecosystem more broadly. Already, tokenization—which Tenev has described as a “freight train” poised to eat Wall Street—has brought fundamental changes to how stocks and other assets are traded.
The potential upsides to tokenization are huge, but significant questions remain over how to implement it. Meanwhile, some fear the coming train could undermine some protections for individual “retail” investors and destabilize a U.S. equities market whose reliability has for decades been the envy of the world.
The tokenization wave isn’t the first push to overhaul Wall Street’s under-the-hood operations. In the 1970s, traders confronted what became known as the “paperwork crisis,” which saw stock markets, drowning in orders, shut down mid-week simply to keep up with recordkeeping. Repeated work stoppages finally led to a computer-based solution.
“Once upon a time there were leather-bound journals that said who owns all the stock,” explains Robert Leshner, a former economist who now runs the tokenization firm Superstate. “Then, people said, ‘This is too hard, let’s not update anymore,’ so they decided to create a legal fiction that assigned ownership of all the stock to the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation,” or DTCC.
The DTCC regime, which has been in place for decades, means it’s no longer necessary to record every single share transfer. Instead, the clearinghouse keeps track of the stock held by different brokerages on behalf of their customers and settles up transactions between those brokerages the next business day.
Under this system, the brokerages nominally own the stock, but all the rights that attach to it—dividends, voting privileges, and so on—remain with the customers. The system has worked pretty well over the decades, and for those who insist on doing things the old-fashioned way, DTCC means they can still demand physical copies of their shares. (This option is popular with “GameStop truthers,” who believe reverting to paper will thwart a Wall Street conspiracy against retail investors.)
Now, though, the current DTCC system of “T+1”—in which the clearinghouse closes out trades the next business day by reconciling accounts among brokerages—has come to feel outdated in an age when so much business is conducted instantly and around the clock. This has prompted companies like Leshner’s Superstate to offer a faster alternative. The startup is working with companies to issue versions of their shares that trade on a blockchain, an arrangement under which the firms don’t have to rely on intermediaries to hold or track their stock. It also means stock trades can be settled instantly, while allowing firms to interact with their shareholders more directly.
Outside the U.S., tokenized assets are already helping investors avoid big trading commissions and invest in private companies like SpaceX
Other firms are approaching tokenization in a different fashion. Robinhood, for example, doesn’t help firms tokenize their stocks, but instead takes stocks available on the open market and offers them in a blockchain “wrapper” as a sort of derivative. These offerings are currently available only in Europe, where stock owners can buy and sell the “Stock Tokens” alongside assets like Bitcoin.
Retail investors unfamiliar with tokenization may be surprised, and possibly alarmed, to discover that a company they own is trading in the crypto-verse. For now, at least, it’s not something to worry about. Currently, even tokenization boosters say the new blockchain system will exist alongside the old one rather than replace it. So why do all this in the first place?
For the average investor who trades only from time to time, the arrival of tokenized assets won’t mean much. Active traders, though, will appreciate the move to blockchain, since it opens the door for more trading after hours and on weekends. The new regime will also be appealing to institutional investors, since it will free up collateral that might otherwise be tied up waiting for settlement.
“Imagine you’re a hedge fund and want to buy $1 million of Tesla stock,” says Johann Kerbrat, SVP of Robinhood Crypto. “You buy it on Friday, so you don’t have the money anymore, but you don’t get the shares in your account until Monday. So for three days, you can’t do anything.” It’s not just stocks being tokenized. BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, working with Superstate’s tokenization rival Securitize, offers access to money-market funds and U.S. Treasuries via blockchain, and has already grown to $2 billion in assets under management. Meanwhile,J.P. Morgan is offering tokenized versions of private equity assets on its in-house Kinexys blockchain, in part because the process makes capital calls easier to track and manage.
This is likely just the beginning. Rob Hadick, a partner at venture capital firm Dragonfly Capital, notes that other realms of finance like credit and fixed income are still conducted primarily in pre-digital fashion, with some transactions still made official by means of a fax. A switch to tokenization could enable such transactions to settle faster and more reliably. Hadick says it will also produce savings for banks and brokerages since it will reduce the ranks of back-office staff and disrupt specialized middlemen who handle tasks like loan origination and servicing fees. Meanwhile, for traders of all sorts, tokenized assets will be easier to move across brokerages or post as collateral.
It is still early days, especially in the U.S., where the Securities and Exchange Commission has yet to give the green light to tokenized equities. As of mid-November, the total value of such assets worldwide was about $660 million, according to research site RWA.xyz; the most popular ones include tokenized versions of index-tracking ETFs and Big Tech stocks such as Tesla, Nvidia, and Alphabet.
But that nascent state hasn’t stopped brokerages from pushing forward, including crypto shop Kraken, whose tokenized versions of select U.S. stocks are doing a brisk trade in markets like Brazil and South Africa, where traders still pay hefty commissions that can amount to 10% or more, even as such fees have largely been eliminated in the U.S. Robinhood, meanwhile, got its hands on shares of privately held OpenAI and SpaceX, and has given away tokenized versions of them to European customers.
As for the DTCC, it would be easy to assume the clearinghouse opposes the tokenization wave. Quite the opposite: According to two sources familiar with the company, the outfit is eager to move into blockchain, partly because it offers a potential way to expand into private markets. Asked for comment, the DTCC did not provide details but did suggest it is embracing the technology.
“DTCC believes in the power and potential of tokenization to evolve and modernize market infrastructure. We are actively working to enable capabilities that further our products and services,” said Brian Steele, DTCC’s president of clearing and securities services.
Not everyone is convinced a rush to tokenization is a good thing. Those urging caution include Citadel Securities, which has asked the SEC to adopt a go-slow approach. According to a source close to the firm, the trading giant fears that some crypto-aligned firms want to use the rulemaking process around tokenization to gain exemptions from long-standing consumer protection obligations. The person also expressed concern that a rapid shift could undermine trust in a U.S. equities market that is the biggest in the world and has been fine-tuned for decades.
This concern may not be unfounded. Already, there have been notable discrepancies between the prices of traditional shares of a company’s stock and the prices of tokenized versions offered by the likes of Kraken. Meanwhile, it’s unclear if every firm offering tokenized equities has put in place adequate guardrails when it comes to custody and fiduciary obligations to the customer. What happens, for instance, in the event of a crypto firm going bankrupt while holding tokenized shares of a customer’s stock?
And while every financial institution appears to view blockchain as the technology of the future, they may not agree as to which blockchain. Robinhood, among others, is relying on the open-source Ethereum chain to build out its tokenization business, while J.P. Morgan appears wedded to its own proprietary chain. According to Hadick, the venture capitalist, this situation could slow adoption, since, he says, other big firms like Goldman Sachs will be reluctant to rely on a blockchain controlled by a rival.
Hadick adds, though, that any impasse is unlikely to last long, since “one thing blockchains do well is coordinate trust.”
This article appears in the December 2025/January 2026 issue of Fortune with the headline: “Get ready to own a tokenized portfolio.”
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.
With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.
“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.
The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.
CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
Reversing recent guardrails
MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.
The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.
The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.
MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.
The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.
“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.
The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.
“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.
Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market.
The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.
That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.
“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”
By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump.
Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.
The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.
The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.
“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”
European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.
The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.
Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.
Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.
Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation.
“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.
Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.
The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.
Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.
Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.
Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.
AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.
The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.
The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives.
More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.
Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said.
The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.
“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”
To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.
The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.”
OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.”
Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.
Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.
Politics8 years ago