Crypto platforms are moving beyond cryptocurrency trading, adding equities, commodities, indices and exposure to private companies. But the emerging “everything exchange” is not simply a contest to list the largest number of products. Its success depends on whether liquidity, continuous trading, interoperable infrastructure and regulation can turn broader access into reliable financial services.
Louis Régis, founder and CEO of Propr; Josip Rupena, CEO and founder of milo; Arthur Firstov, chief business officer at Mercuryo; and the Curve Finance team offer different perspectives on this transition. Their insights point to a common challenge of making financial markets more accessible without sacrificing execution quality, customer protection or risk management.
The opportunity extends beyond crypto exchanges becoming multi-asset brokers. It involves rethinking how customers access markets, how liquidity moves between platforms, and whether traditional and crypto-native financial infrastructure can operate together.
Liquidity Is What Turns Asset Listings Into Usable Markets
The case for multi-asset platforms begins with market depth rather than the number of available instruments. For years, crypto-native venues struggled to expand beyond digital assets because they could not consistently provide the liquidity required to execute larger orders at competitive prices.
Régis believes that constraint has started to ease.
“Because the liquidity finally arrived,” Régis said. “For years the constraint on trading anything beyond crypto onchain was not demand, it was depth.”
He points to the development of deeper markets for selected traditional assets as the foundation for expansion. Traders can increasingly access instruments such as the Nasdaq and S&P 500 through crypto-native venues while obtaining spreads and execution that approach those available in traditional finance.
“Today a retail trader can trade the Nasdaq or the S&P on Hyperliquid or Lighter and get spreads and execution close to what they’d get in TradFi,” Régis told FinanceFeeds. “That’s the building block.”
However, the availability of a tokenized asset or derivative does not guarantee that it can be traded efficiently. Curve Finance warns that platforms can create the appearance of a comprehensive marketplace while leaving customers with fragmented liquidity underneath.
“Putting an asset on-chain does not make it liquid,” they said, “and an ‘everything exchange’ can in practice still be many shallow markets behind one interface.”
The distinction matters because a unified trading interface can conceal substantial differences in market depth, pricing and the ability to exit a position. A platform might offer exposure to dozens of asset classes, but that breadth has limited value if traders encounter wide spreads, excessive slippage or insufficient liquidity when they need to close positions.
Curve Finance argues that tokenized markets require dependable connections between onchain and traditional venues, not merely the technical ability to represent assets on a blockchain.
“For these markets to work well, tokenized assets need reliable price discovery and arbitrage between traditional and on-chain venues,” the team told FinanceFeeds, as well as “clear issuance and redemption, and enough liquidity to be used as collateral or integrated into other financial products.”
Firstov makes a similar point when considering the appeal of round-the-clock access. Extending trading hours does not necessarily improve the experience if markets become less liquid outside conventional sessions.
“Trading an equity at two in the morning only becomes useful if there is enough depth to execute properly,” Firstov told FinanceFeeds, “so the quality of the market still matters as much as the length of the trading day.”
Always-On Trading Changes Expectations, but Market Quality Still Matters
Continuous trading is another advantage of crypto-native platforms, particularly when economic announcements, geopolitical developments or company news emerge outside conventional market hours.
Régis argues that the significance of 24/7 access goes beyond convenience.
“The advantage isn’t 24/7 trading as a feature,” Régis told FinanceFeeds. “It’s that continuous, always-on markets make market hours look like an arbitrary product decision rather than a law of nature.”
He believes that experiencing markets that respond to events over the weekend can change what traders expect from financial platforms.
“Once a trader has experienced pricing a weekend geopolitical event in real time,” he said, “going back to waiting for Monday’s open feels broken.”
Rupena sees the advantage as a consequence of how crypto-native infrastructure was designed. Rather than adapting systems built around conventional exchange hours, clearing arrangements and settlement windows, crypto platforms can build products around continuous market access from the beginning.
“The structural advantage crypto-native platforms have is that they were built for 24/7 markets from day one,” he told FinanceFeeds.
“Traditional finance still relies on fragmented exchanges, clearing systems and settlement windows,” Rupena said.
“Tokenization and crypto-style infrastructure can collapse a lot of that friction.”
Firstov also sees tokenization as a way to extend continuous access to assets that traditionally depend on fixed trading sessions.
“Tokenisation can bring traditional assets onto always-on markets,” Firstov said, allowing investors to respond to “earnings announcements, macro developments or breaking news outside traditional exchange hours.”
Yet continuous access should not be confused with a fully functioning 24/7 financial market. An instrument may trade over the weekend even when its underlying asset does not, creating questions about pricing, hedging and how closely its market value tracks the reference asset.
Curve Finance notes that traditional financial institutions are already exploring longer trading windows, but argues that crypto-native infrastructure offers capabilities beyond extended hours.
“Traditional finance is already moving toward near-continuous markets,” the team said, pointing to major US exchanges working toward “roughly 23-hour weekday trading.”
“Crypto-native infrastructure goes further by combining continuous trading with programmable settlement and collateral,” the team told FinanceFeeds.
Perpetual Futures Could Pressure CFDs Without Replacing Them Overnight
Perpetual futures are one of the clearest examples of crypto-native products expanding into traditional financial markets. They can provide leveraged exposure to assets without requiring traders to own the underlying instruments directly, creating potential overlap with contracts for difference, or CFDs.
Régis sees an important distinction between the two products in how their markets operate.
“A perp is a transparent, exchange-traded instrument with a public funding rate and an onchain order book,” Régis told FinanceFeeds. “A CFD is a bilateral contract against the broker.”
“For a trader, that difference matters,” he said. “The perp is priced by the market, the CFD is priced by your counterparty.”
That structure can make perpetual futures attractive to traders who prioritize visible market pricing, continuous access and a broader range of instruments. Régis believes the competitive pressure will become apparent in pricing and fees as the products gain traction.
He does not, however, argue that CFDs lack advantages. Established CFD providers retain important strengths in regulated retail markets.
“Where CFDs still win is regulated retail access in jurisdictions like the UK and Europe,” Régis said.
“Where perps win is transparency, cost and the asset universe.”
Rupena also sees perpetual futures as a potentially important bridge between crypto trading and broader market exposure.
“Perpetual futures could become particularly important because they offer a simple way to provide continuous leveraged exposure without constantly rolling contracts,” he said.
“If regulation permits, that model could increasingly compete with CFDs across equities, FX, commodities and indices.”
Firstov believes the crossover could be especially relevant for customers already familiar with crypto derivatives. For these traders, using perpetuals to access other asset classes may require less adjustment than moving to a different type of brokerage product.
“Yes, particularly among traders who already use perpetuals in crypto,” he said.
“They are familiar with the product, there is no contract expiry to manage, and the same structure can increasingly be used to provide exposure to markets outside crypto.”
Nevertheless, established CFD providers retain advantages that go beyond product design.
“CFDs have a very established position in FX and equity trading,” he said, supported by “mature distribution and regulatory frameworks.”
This makes an immediate, wholesale replacement of CFDs unlikely to be the only relevant outcome. Perpetual futures could instead capture particular customer segments, asset classes or trading situations where continuous access and exchange-based execution are attractive.
For existing brokers, that creates a strategic choice. They could attempt to compete directly with crypto-native venues or find ways to connect to their liquidity and infrastructure.
Régis favors the latter approach.
“Brokers can plug into that liquidity or compete with it,” he said. “Plugging in is the smarter move.”
The Customer Relationship Is Becoming the Commercial Prize
The expansion into multiple asset classes is also changing what financial platforms are trying to become. Rather than operating as specialist venues for individual products, they increasingly seek to combine trading, custody, payments, lending and asset transfers within one customer relationship.
Rupena describes the ambition as a move toward a single financial interface.
“Crypto exchanges are no longer trying to be just crypto exchanges,” Rupena said. “They are trying to become the financial operating system for the customer — one account where you can trade, hold, borrow against and move across every major asset class.”
The commercial logic is straightforward: a customer who can access several financial services through one account has fewer reasons to move funds between separate providers. A platform may also gain more opportunities to serve that customer through different market conditions and financial needs.
Firstov similarly places the customer relationship at the center of the multi-asset strategy.
“All three are part of it,” he said, “although the customer relationship is probably the most valuable.”
“The more activity a platform can keep within one account, the less reason the user has to move money between different brokers, exchanges and payment providers,” Firstov said.
Tokenization could extend that relationship beyond trading. Assets that can interact with different financial applications may support a closer connection between investing, payments and lending.
“As tokenised assets become more composable, that relationship becomes broader still,” he said. “The same assets can potentially move between trading, payments, lending and other onchain applications rather than sitting in isolated financial silos.”
This approach changes the competitive question. The objective is not simply to provide access to more products, but to make the account useful across a wider range of financial activities.
Régis approaches the same issue from the trader’s perspective. He argues that customers are less concerned with whether a venue is classified as a crypto exchange, broker or traditional exchange than with the exposure and execution it provides.
“They don’t think in categories,” Régis told FinanceFeeds. “They think in exposure.”
He summarizes the practical considerations this way: “They’ll care about three things: can I trade what I want, what does it cost me to get filled, and can I trust the venue,” Régis told FinanceFeeds.
Firstov expects a similar shift in customer priorities. “For most customers, the label will become less important than the experience,” he said. “They will care about the markets they can access, how much it costs, whether there is enough liquidity and how easily they can move money in and out.”
That does not mean the infrastructure underneath a unified account becomes less important. In fact, integrating more products increases the need for dependable funding, withdrawals, custody, pricing and compliance. Customers may see one interface, but the platform must coordinate multiple services and market structures behind it.
Regulation and Interoperability Will Shape the End State
The everything exchange faces a fundamental tension: customers want a unified experience, but the assets and products available through that experience operate under different legal and market structures.
Rupena sees regulation, rather than technology, as the main constraint. “The biggest constraint is not technology — it is regulation,” he told FinanceFeeds.
“The technology already makes an ‘everything exchange’ possible,” Rupena said. “The harder question is how you combine securities, derivatives, commodities and crypto across multiple regulatory regimes.”
Firstov identifies a similar challenge. Expanding into each new asset class introduces different requirements around licensing, custody, leverage, investor protection and distribution. A platform may be able to present these products within one account, but that does not remove the obligations attached to each service.
“Regulation is probably the hardest part,” he said, because every new asset class brings different rules around “licensing, custody, leverage, investor protection and distribution.”
Régis argues that clearer legal pathways for onchain venues could also change how established brokers access liquidity.
“The Clarity Act and a compliant onshore path for platforms like Hyperliquid would unlock a lot,” he said, “because regulated brokers could then route into onchain liquidity directly.”
The question is not only whether crypto platforms can obtain access to additional markets. It is also whether traditional financial firms can use crypto-native infrastructure while meeting their existing regulatory obligations.
Curve Finance believes the likely outcome will involve selective adoption rather than the wholesale replacement of traditional financial systems.
“TradFi will probably adopt these mechanisms selectively, but not completely,” the team said.
“The most likely outcome is regulated issuance and redemption,” they said, “with more open circulation and interoperable liquidity in between.”
That model would allow traditional financial institutions to retain regulated controls around the creation and redemption of assets while permitting greater movement between connected markets.
It also addresses another problem: concentrating all liquidity, assets and customer activity within one platform could create a single point of failure. Fragmentation is not always a weakness if it separates risks and prevents a problem in one venue from spreading throughout the system.
Curve Finance summarizes its preferred approach as “interoperability without contagion.”
“Open standards and routing should let liquidity move between these separate markets without forcing everything through one operator or creating a single point of failure,” the team said.
Régis sees a complementary challenge in the way perpetual-futures liquidity is distributed across venues. Without effective routing, trading activity may concentrate around platforms with the greatest name recognition rather than those offering the best execution.
“Today there’s no perp equivalent of a DEX aggregator,” Régis said, “so flow goes to whoever has mindshare rather than whoever has the best execution.”
He expects a dedicated routing layer to improve that dynamic. “I think that routing layer arrives soon,” he said, “and when it does, venues get valued purely on execution quality.”
Rupena describes the process directly. “The convergence will happen from both directions,” he said.
“Crypto platforms will start looking more like regulated financial institutions,” Rupena told FinanceFeeds, “while traditional finance will increasingly adopt crypto-style features like 24/7 markets, tokenization, programmable collateral and faster settlement.”
The result may not be one giant exchange replacing every broker, bank or trading venue. It may instead be a network of connected platforms in which traditional assets, digital assets and financial services become increasingly accessible through common interfaces and interoperable infrastructure.
The firms best positioned to benefit will need more than extensive product lists. They will need deep liquidity, dependable execution, effective risk controls and regulatory arrangements that allow different markets to work together.
The central question is no longer simply how many markets a platform can list. It is whether those markets can function together well enough to make a broader financial ecosystem genuinely useful to customers.
