Bitcoin

Ethereum

Solana

Dogecoin

The tokenized-equity conversation over the past year has been one of magnificent growth. Stock, ETF, and equity-index perpetual open interest is up ~78x since DefiLlama first captured reliable tracking in November 2025, from $114M to a peak of $9.99B on August 18, 2026.
As of the most recently completed trading day, DefiLlama tracks $31.6B in 24h volume and $14.6B in open interest across 3,132 RWA-perp pairs on 32 venues. Stock, ETF, and equity-index perps specifically — the segment this piece focuses on — account for $15.6B of that volume (49.2%) and $8.5B of that open interest (57.9%) , making equities the single largest slice of the RWA-perp market, ahead of commodities, forex, and private-equity/venture perps combined.
For context on the other side of the market: on-chain tokenized equities (the spot, custody-backed side — Ondo Global Markets, Backed/xStocks, bTech/bStocks, and others) currently carry $3.79B in active on-chain market cap across 1,639 tracked assets . Stock-perp open interest alone is now roughly 2.2x larger than the entire on-chain tokenized-equity market  — a pattern we covered in our earlier piece, Stocks On The Blockchain - Do They Have Product-Market Fit?
Where Gate Fits In
Adoption of stock perps on the CEXes has mostly been a listings story: how many stocks does an issuer offer, how fast is on-chain market cap growing, which venue has the broadest catalogue. 
Gate  has listed the most tokenized equity perpetuals, by far - standing at 385, beyond all the other exchanges. This is impressive, and we want to go one layer deeper to diagnose whether a venue can actually support leveraged trading in these instruments at scale, without the mechanical failure modes (bad fills, funding-rate whipsaws, cascading liquidations) that kill adoption in thin markets?
We're drawing on two independent data sources to do that:
Exchange order-book depth data supplied by Gate and independently re-verified against the complete Aug 25–Sep 7, 2026 window — covering crypto spot and perpetual pairs (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, DOGE) and equity-linked perpetuals across six venues (Gate, Binance, Bitget, Bybit, OKX, Hyperliquid), on an RPI basis. Binance spot has no RPI book, so its public order book is used instead. This is vendor-supplied; DefiLlama does not independently track order-book depth or bid/ask spreads for these instruments, so these figures are disclosed as exchange-reported.
DefiLlama's own RWA-perp tracking — volume, open interest, and funding-rate data for perpetual contracts referencing stocks, ETFs, and equity indices, current through today, across every venue we track.
As such, we will be going into the weeds to look at how Gate handles their flow, given they have the most number of perpetuals listed.
Gate — Mechanism, Core Lquidity, and RWA Footprint
While Gate isn't necessarily the largest stock-perp market by volume, it's the broadest equity-perp catalogue we found in this data — 385 listed contracts, more than any of the other five venues compared here — which makes it the highest-stakes test of the thesis above: a wide catalogue is exactly what "listings-story" adoption looks like, so if depth doesn't hold up behind it, that's where it would show.
Why Depth Matters More For Perps Than Spot
A thin spot market mostly costs you a bad fill. A thin perp market compounds that: shallow books widen the gap between mark price and where you can actually enter or exit, which pushes funding rates around more violently as small trades move the mark, which in turn increases the odds that a leveraged position gets liquidated on a move that a deeper book would have absorbed. 
For a still-young product category like stock perps, that failure chain — bad fills, funding-rate whipsaws, cascading liquidations — is exactly what determines whether traders come back after their first large order. 
Liquidity Evidence
Gate  lists 385 distinct equity-linked perpetual contracts as of September 7, 2026 — the most of the six venues in this comparison, ahead of Bitget  (275), Bybit  (227), Binance  (180), OKX  (168), and Hyperliquid  (105) — and added the most new listings over the over the preceding 10 days (+12, vs +8 at Bybit and OKX),
Breadth alone proves availability, not tradability. So we checked the order book on the five most-traded names — SNDK, SKHYNIX, SPCX, SOXL, and MU, which together account for 60% of tracked equity-perp volume, averaged across the fourteen daily samples — at every depth band from top-of-book out to 2%.
At the top of the book, it isn't close: Gate has the deepest resting size on four of the top five contracts by volume — SNDK, SKHYNIX, SOXL, and MU. The exception is SPCX, where Bybit's top-of-book ($90.6K) edges out Gate's ($80.3K).
Moving one band out to the 0.1% level, Gate does sweep all five names, with margins ranging from 5% to 28%.
That lead isn't a single-day artifact. Tracking SOXL's and MU's 1%-depth daily over the full Aug 25–Sep 7 window, Gate held the top spot every single day on both names (14/14), with its lead never dropping below 19% on SOXL and 7% on MU. SNDK is more mixed by comparison — Gate led on only 10 of the 14 days, with its edge thinning noticeably in the back half of the window.
Moving out to 1% depth, the picture stays strong but gets more textured: Gate is deepest on four of the five names, losing only SPCX, where Bitget's 1% depth ($25.0M) runs roughly double Gate's ($10.6M).
Looking at the combined top-5 book across every band tells the fuller story. Gate leads clearly at the extremes — top-of-book and the wide 2% band — but the middle of the book is level rather than Gate-led: at the 0.5% mark, Bitget is ahead on three of the five names, with the two of them tied within 1% of each other on the remaining two. That's a real, disclosed pattern, not a rounding error — Gate isn't uniformly deepest through the whole book, it's deepest at the extremes.
Spreads confirm the same "strong but not uniformly best" pattern: on median bid-ask spread across the five most actively-traded contracts, Gate sits at 0.141 basis points — tighter than Bybit (0.187), Bitget (0.348), and Hyperliquid (1.096), but looser than Binance (0.106) and OKX (0.106), which are effectively tied for tightest.
If this were the only evidence, it would be a solid but mixed story. It reads more convincingly once you check whether the same firm's other order books look the same way. They do:
Across Gate's core crypto spot markets (Aug 25–Sep 7 average), Gate has the deepest top-of-book on four of the five major assets we checked — BTC ($237.0K), ETH ($117.4K), XRP ($19.5K), and DOGE ($10.0K) — ahead of Binance, Bybit, OKX, and Hyperliquid on each of those. SOL is now the exception: OKX holds the deepest top-of-book at $57.0K, ahead of Gate's $30.4K. The margin varies: comfortable on ETH (1.58x the next-best book, OKX) and DOGE (1.52x), thinner on BTC (1.27x); XRP sits at 1.51x.
The same shows up on the perp side: with Bitget added to the comparison set, Gate has the deepest top-of-book on all five majors — BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE — ahead of Binance, Bitget, Bybit, OKX, and Hyperliquid on every one. At 1% depth the picture is more mixed: Gate holds the deepest book on BTC and SOL, while Bitget edges ahead on ETH, XRP and DOGE. This isn't offered as proof that Gate's equity books are deep — the equity data above already establishes that directly. It's evidence that the equity-book result is a general trait of how Gate runs its order books, showing up independently in a second, unrelated product line, rather than a one-off snapshot.
Rwa-Perp Footprint And Stability
On the full equity-perp universe, across the 93 equity perpetuals tracked over the 14-day average, Gate ranks 3rd of 6 on 24h volume ($1.15B, against Binance's $8.34B) and 3rd on open interest ($738M, against Binance's $2.51B and Hyperliquid's $1.69B). Breadth and depth are not the same thing as scale — Gate isn't the biggest book here.
Narrowing to DefiLlama's own RWA-perp tracking, restricted to the stock/ETF/index scope specifically, Gate accounts for roughly $888.5M in daily volume and $778.1M in open interest on the most recent complete day.
However, despite Gate losing out in market size, it makes up for in funding-rate volatility. Across 87 stock tickers listed identically on Gate, Binance, Bybit, and OKX, Gate's funding-rate volatility over the trailing 30 days (0.00245 percentage-point standard deviation) is a near-dead-heat with OKX (0.00248) — and meaningfully tighter than Binance (0.00478, ~1.95x Gate's) and Bybit (0.01132, ~4.6x Gate's). That gap holds despite Binance carrying roughly 2.9x Gate's average open interest on those same 87 names over the period — bigger books, less stable funding. 
Put together, the picture that emerges isn't "Gate is the deepest book everywhere." It's more specific than that, and more useful: Gate leads the top of the book on four of its five most-traded equity contracts and sweeps all five once you move out to the 0.1% band, leads at the wide 2% end of the book too, and shows the identical pattern on its core crypto markets — but the middle of the book (0.5% depth) is level rather than Gate-led, and it sits mid-pack on raw spreads. Scale tells a third story again: Gate isn't the largest stock-perp venue by volume or open interest, trailing Binance by a wide margin on both.
What ties those three uneven results together is the one number that isn't a snapshot of order-book size at all: funding-rate volatility on identical instruments. There, Gate is essentially tied with OKX for the steadiest funding in the group, and meaningfully steadier than Binance and Bybit — despite running a fraction of Binance's open interest. Depth at the right points in the book, not raw size, is what keeps a leveraged market's funding from whipsawing. It also shows its not always about who lists the most, but also, who can actually hold a book together under size. 
Comparisons & Gate’s Product Positioning
Before comparing venues head-to-head, it's worth being upfront about what's actually being compared. Trading in this segment is concentrated: across the 93 equity perpetuals tracked in the vendor data, the five largest contracts account for 60% of volume, with SNDK alone at 28.5%. That means most of what separates one venue's book from another's — in the depth comparisons above and the tables below — comes down to how each handles a small, identifiable set of names, not a broad average across the full catalogue.
Vendor equity-perp order-book comparison (Aug 25–Sep 7 average; listings as of Sep 7, 6 venues, full 385-instrument Gate catalogue):
Warehouse RWA-perp comparison (stock/ETF/index scope, latest complete day, DefiLlama's own tracking):
Read together, the two tables tell the same story from different angles: Gate has 2.3x Binance's pair count in the warehouse comparison, and 2.1x Binance's listings in the vendor comparison too — but Binance runs ~7x Gate's volume and 3.4x Gate's open interest. Breadth leader, not scale leader, in both.
The numbers point to one thing: deep, actively-managed order books. That capability shows up across two separate product lines (crypto and equity perps) and survives the one comparison: funding volatility, checked against identical instruments on other venues. None of that makes Gate the largest venue in either table above — it isn't, and the tables say so plainly. It's evidence for a specific, narrower claim: that Gate's liquidity is deep enough, and disciplined enough, to support the kind of leveraged trading this piece opened by asking about — not a claim to be the biggest market doing it.
Conclusion
Strip away the listings counts and the volume totals, and the question this piece opened with was never really "who has the most stocks" — it was whether any venue can actually hold a leveraged stock-perp book together at scale. That's an infrastructure and stability question, not a catalogue question, and it's the one the data above was built to answer.
Gate's answer is specific, not sweeping. It isn't the largest stock-perp venue by volume or open interest — Binance runs ~7x its volume and 3.4x its open interest in this data, and that gap is real and disclosed, not talked around. What it is: the broadest equity-perp catalogue of the venues compared here, the deepest top-of-book on four of its five most-traded names (and the deepest liquidity at the wide 2% band on four of the five, and the largest combined 2% book across them ($92.8M vs Bitget's $80.9M), the same depth pattern independently visible in its unrelated crypto markets, and — on the number hardest to manufacture — funding-rate volatility on identical stock contracts that's essentially tied with OKX for the steadiest in the group, despite carrying a fraction of Binance's open interest on those same names.
That last point is the one worth remembering after the tables are forgotten. A bigger book can still produce worse funding stability than a smaller, better-managed one, and for a trader deciding whether to keep leveraged exposure open overnight, stability is the number that determines whether they stay. Listing counts got tokenized equities onto exchanges. Whether traders actually stick around in size is going to be decided by exactly the kind of order-book discipline this piece measured — and on that measure, Gate's crypto liquidity and its stock-perp funding stability are two data points pointing at the same underlying capability, not two unrelated claims stitched together for a press release.

Gate has listed the most tokenized equity perpetuals, by far - standing at 385, beyond all the other exchanges. We want to go one layer deeper to diagnose whether a venue can actually support leveraged trading in these instruments at scale.

Deep Enough to Trade: Gate’s Case For Tokens And Stocks

As traditional assets move onchain and the boundary between crypto and traditional finance becomes less distinct, CEXs are positioned to take another step: becoming integrated access and infrastructure layers through which users and institutions can move between asset classes, settlement systems, and onchain applications.

Centralized crypto exchanges have evolved from simple marketplaces for digital assets into integrated financial platforms combining trading, payments, lending, yield products, custody, and institutional services.

CEXs are therefore evolving beyond trading venues into integrated access and infrastructure layers connecting multiple asset classes, financial products, settlement systems, and onchain applications for both retail and institutional participants.

From Exchange to Infrastructure: How CEXs Are Reshaping Global Market Access

Sébastien

Tether

Over the past 18 months, the tokenised equities market has grown at a pace few anticipated. Driven by demand for 24/7 access, crypto-native funding, and DeFi composability, a new generation of products has emerged across the board, from institutional protocols like Ondo and xStocks to centralised exchanges such as Kraken, Coinbase, and Binance. Every major actor is racing to capture a share of the market and carve out a position on the spectrum from traditional finance to onchain DeFi.
But when you map that spectrum closely, a clear divide appears. 

Some products sit firmly on the TradFi side, heavily regulated, custodial, built on familiar but rigid rails. Others lean into the permissionless ethos of DeFi, onchain, composable, self-custodied. Most players have optimised for one end or the other. None have managed to cover the full range.
That might be changing. With the launch of bStocks and its native integration with BNB Chain, naturally tied to Binance, the exchange is making a strategic move that goes beyond adding a new product. Together, Binance Stocks and bStocks allow users to navigate the full spectrum, from fiat entry to DeFi composability, without switching platforms, changing standards, or losing continuity. 
A market still finding its rails
On one end of the spectrum sit the traditional brokers. They offer unmatched depth with thousands of listed securities, institutional-grade liquidity, and decades of regulatory infrastructure, but their rails stop at the crypto frontier. They don’t offer self-custody, crypto features and composability between asset classes. 

Beyond that, the traditional brokerage world is itself fragmented: each broker operates under its own regulatory perimeter, offers a distinct suite of products, and serves a defined set of jurisdictions. A user in Southeast Asia or Latin America often can't access the same securities as a US-based investor. 
At the other end sit the pure-play onchain protocols. Ondo, with over $1B in TVL and more than $300M in weekly volume on its Global Markets platform is leading the sector. xStocks, developed by Backed Finance and acquired by Kraken, has established itself as a solid interoperable alternative, available across multiple CEXs and chains including TON, EVM networks, and Solana. 

Both are technically compelling but neither quite function as a platform in the fuller  sense. They depend on external distribution rails: wallets, integrations, fiat on-ramps, and regulatory frameworks that are entirely outside their control.
In between lies a growing set of exchanges moving into stocks, each trying to bridge the gap in their own way, and each running into the same structural constraints.
Many of them have chosen to plug into existing infrastructure. Bybit and Kraken offer xStocks through their trading platforms and wallets. OKX has partnered with Ondo Finance to give users access to tokenised equities. Both deliver real utility but in each case, the tokenised equity layer sits on top of third-party infrastructure. In other words, these exchanges are just distributors.
Coinbase is pursuing an ambitious vision as the "Everything Exchange" combining crypto, equities, derivatives, and prediction markets in one interface, with tokenised stocks built on Base. The product is still in early rollout, with partial equities coverage and a nascent DeFi integration via Base.
Backpack offers perhaps the clearest philosophical alignment with where the market is heading: a regulated brokerage on one side, Solana-native tokenisation on the other, with onchain IPO access as a genuine differentiator. But Backpack Securities only began its rollout recently, with nascent infrastructure and a liquidity and user base that remains a fraction of the established players.
As the table above illustrates, the pattern is consistent across the board: each player has made an architectural choice that defines both what it can offer and what it can't. Until now, no single actor has been able to cover the full spectrum but by combining Binance Stocks and bStocks, Binance is actually about to make it happen.
The Binance continuum: from fiat to DeFi without leaving the platform
The fragmentation described above has a real cost for users. Going from a stock listed on a CEX to a tokenised share usable in DeFi typically requires multiple steps: conversions, swaps, transfers, bridges, with each adding friction, cost, and counterparty exposure. Through Binance Stocks and bStocks, Binance has built two distinct products that sit at opposite ends of the spectrum and connected them into a single, uninterrupted journey.
The entry point is Binance Stocks. Accessible directly from an existing Binance account, it gives users access to 7,000+ US-listed stocks and ETFs, funded in USDT, USDC, BNB, or USD1, with zero commission and fractional investing from $5. Trading runs 24/5 and users hold beneficial ownership of the underlying shares, held in regulated custody by Nest Clearing and Custody Limited, making them eligible for dividends and corporate actions.
But Binance Stocks remains custodial and stays on the traditional side of the spectrum, bound by 24/5 trading windows and offering limited financial composability. That's where bStocks comes in.
bStocks are BEP-20 tokens on BNB Smart Chain issued by BTech Holdings Limited, each backed 1:1 by a real US-listed share held in regulated custody, verifiable at any time via Binance's Proof of Collateral page. At launch, six securities are available: TSLAB (Tesla), NVDAB (Nvidia), CRCLB (Circle Internet Group), MUB (Micron Technology), SNDKB (SanDisk), SPCXB (SpaceX) and more to come as the product scales.
Users can access bStocks in two ways: by purchasing them directly with USDT or USDC on the spot market, or by converting an existing Binance Stocks position at a 1:1 ratio with no conversion fee and no lock-up. With near-instant settlement and no market hour dependency, a user who wants to trade on the back of an earnings release at 3am on a Sunday can.
One distinction worth noting on custody: with bStocks, users hold the token itself in self-custody, meaning they control the onchain asset directly in their own wallet. The underlying share, however, remains in institutional custody by the issuer. In other words, bStocks deliver the full economic exposure to the underlying security.
Once in self-custody, the asset changes character entirely. bStocks can be held in any compatible BNB Smart Chain wallet, including Trust Wallet and Binance Web 3 Wallet. From there, the position becomes DeFi-composable: users can trade on PancakeSwap or Aster, lend on Venus or Lista DAO and deploy across the broader BNB Chain ecosystem, all while continuing to earn dividends on the underlying security. 

Those dividends require no action from the user: they're processed automatically through the Multiplier, a rebasing mechanism that adjusts bStock balances onchain proportionally and credits them ahead of the traditional pay date.
To make this clear, here's an example of a concrete journey in the Binance continuum. A user deposits fiat or crypto into their Binance account, buys NVDA shares directly with USDC on the spot market, and converts it into a bStock (NVDAB) with one click. 

They withdraw to Trust Wallet, deposit into Venus (a lending protocol) as collateral, borrow USDT against it, and redeploy that liquidity on Aster (a perp DEX) to short Bitcoin, or any other listed asset. Meanwhile, their NVDAB position keeps earning dividends automatically via the Multiplier. 

One asset, one ecosystem, two markets running in parallel.
Laying the rails
The tokenised equities race is often framed as a product competition: who has the most titles, the best UX, the lowest fees. But the deeper question is architectural: who controls the full stack from fiat entry to DeFi composability, and who is merely renting someone else's infrastructure to get there.
Most players have answered that question by choosing a lane. Traditional brokers own the TradFi end but can't speak crypto. Pure-play onchain protocols own the DeFi end but depend on external rails to reach users. The exchanges in between are building fast, but none has closed the loop on its own terms: Kraken's two products serve different geographies, Coinbase's onchain layer is still nascent, Bybit and OKX are distributing infrastructure they didn't build.
Binance is in a different position. With Binance Stocks covering the traditional equities side and bStocks extending that same position into DeFi via BNB Chain, it has assembled the only end-to-end stack in the market today. A continuum that makes the user experience seamless.
Markets have only rebuilt their basic infrastructure twice before in modern history. The first time was Amsterdam in 1602, when the world’s first stock exchange gave ordinary investors a formal way to buy into companies they didn’t personally know. The second was Nasdaq in 1971, when electronic trading replaced the trading floor and made markets faster, cheaper, and more accessible than any physical exchange before it.
What’s happening now looks like a third with centralised exchanges and specifically Binance leading the charge. Crypto exchanges, built on stablecoin rails and smartphone access, rather than brokerage accounts and banking relationships, are extending markets to people the first two inflections never reached.

With the launch of bStocks and its native integration with BNB Chain, naturally tied to Binance, the exchange is making a strategic move that goes beyond adding a new product.

Stocks onchain: how Binance Stocks and bStocks cover the full equities spectrum

The way people find information is changing. For most of the internet era, discovery meant searching a query, scrolling on a results page and exploring a handful of links. That model has been shifting since the arrival of AI. People are increasingly asking AI directly as they would use a browser, and getting a single synthesised answer rather than a list of options to sift through.
The shift in behaviour is already measurable. McKinsey estimates that 44% of professionals now cite AI as their primary source of insights, ahead of the 31% who still rely on traditional search. ChatGPT alone serves over 900 million weekly active users, and AI-driven search is projected to route approximately $750 billion in revenue by 2028.
For financial decisions, this shift carries real weight. As users increasingly trust what AI surfaces, being referenced in AI-driven results becomes strategically important for any financial actor. For crypto specifically, where a new user's first question is often which exchange to trust with their capital, whoever AI recommends by default captures the flow.
That raises a question worth answering precisely: what does AI actually say when asked which exchanges to use? Across 120 outputs generated from 30 prompts run through four LLMs (Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.4, Gemini 3 Flash, and Qwen 3.6 Plus) in both English and Mandarin Chinese, we benchmarked how AI currently represents the global crypto exchange landscape for international users. This article explores the key findings.
Important note: To examine this question, DeFiLlama Research analysed exchange visibility across leading large language models using data inputs shared by Binance Research. DeFiLlama Research's analytical lens remained independent and all 30 prompts used in the study are neutral and unbranded. The methodology and  prompt list is available in the appendix.
Key Findings
The Tri-Pillar Hierarchy
Three exchanges appear in 100% of outputs across all four models and both languages: Binance, OKX, and Bybit. Out of 120 runs, not a single one omits any of them. Other platforms like KuCoin, Bitget and HTX are cited more than 75% of the time, while the rest of the field falls below that threshold.
Looking at Top-1 placements specifically, a clear dominance emerges. Binance takes 90% of Top-1 slots, followed by Kraken at 6.7% and OKX at 3.3%. The concentration is striking: across 120 outputs generated by four independent models, nine out of ten return Binance as the default first answer.
Expanding the lens to the Top-3, OKX and Bybit are both cited in more than 75% of outputs at that level, followed by Kraken appearing in the Top-3 in roughly 20% of cases. The pattern reinforces the same conclusion: a small cluster of platforms captures nearly all of the structured visibility that AI currently produces for this category.
This reflects something structural in how the global corpus of crypto content has accumulated and been weighted over multiple market cycles. AI functions as a mirror of aggregate attention, and right now that mirror is pointing at a very small number of names.
At the language level, a small but meaningful distinction emerges. English-language outputs are more concentrated than Mandarin ones. Binance takes the Top-1 position in 96.7% of English prompts, compared to 83.3% in Chinese. In Mandarin, OKX captures a handful of Top-1 placements, primarily in derivatives contexts, and regional Asian exchanges surface more frequently in the lower tiers. This matters beyond the numbers. Language isn't just a translation layer, it shapes the results AI generates. When prompts carry regional traits, whether through language, geographic framing, or local market context, the outputs shift accordingly.
Every Exchange Finds Its Field But Binance Covers Them All.
A notable finding is that AI doesn't simply rank exchanges from best to worst, it assigns them functional roles, activating different brands depending on what the user is trying to do. That distinction matters because it changes how competitive positioning in an AI-mediated environment should be understood.
The clearest example is Kraken. Its overall appearance rate is 66.7%, well below the three leading brands. Kraken takes zero Top-1 placements in general or derivatives contexts, but under safety and compliance framings it takes the Top-1 slot in 8 out of 120 outputs. Coinbase International shows a similar pattern: it appears in only 24.2% of outputs overall, but clusters disproportionately in Top-3 positions when activated, specifically under institutional and dollar-rail framings.
Bybit follows the same logic in the other direction. Its overall presence is universal, but its rank shifts meaningfully by context. In general spot prompts it sits at rank 3. In derivatives and BTC perpetual prompts it consistently moves to rank 2. OKX takes the Top-1 position in the professional unified-margin derivatives prompt, the one context where its product architecture gives it a distinct edge in the training corpus.
Crypto.com is another instructive case. It appears in 38.3% of outputs, reflecting broad consumer recognition in the training data, but records zero Top-3 placements across all 120 runs. It has visibility without authority.
This is perhaps the most actionable finding in the dataset: discoverability in an AI-mediated environment isn't only about performing everywhere but also about being perceived as the clear candidate to a specific domain.
Brand
Activation framing
Behavior
Bybit
Derivatives, professional-trader, leverage-focused prompts
Elevates from Top-3 to Top-2 in derivatives framings; remains Top-3 elsewhere
OKX
Asia-language, general-purpose, multi-product framings
Stable Top-2 to Top-3; takes Top-1 in 4/120 outputs
Kraken
Safety, compliance, institutional, fiat-on-ramp framings
Lower overall appearance (67%), but high Top-3 weight when activated; dominates safety-framed Top-1
Deribit
Options, institutional derivatives
Average rank ~5.6, narrow but consistent visibility
Coinbase Intl.
Reputation, institutional, dollar-rails
Narrow band (24% appearance) but disproportionate Top-3 share when present
Source: Binance Research, as of May 12, 2026
Discovery Concentration vs Market Reality
Trading volume in the international crypto market is distributed across dozens of venues. Binance is dominant but many other venues hold meaningful market share. Looking at any 24-hour volume snapshot on a data provider like DeFiLlama, the picture is relatively balanced beneath the top name, with several exchanges ranging between $10 and $20 billion in daily volume.
AI doesn't reflect that picture. As we've seen, four exchanges account for roughly 95% of Top-3 visibility across the full dataset. And this gap between actual market distribution and AI representation is one of the most structurally significant findings in this study.
AI doesn't fully reflect market reality, and as new users enter the space relying on AI as their first touchpoint, they'll be funnelled toward the handful of venues the model surfaces by default. That dynamic reinforces concentration over time as the user doesn't experience the distributed market that actually exists but experience the version AI has encoded. And that version is significantly narrower. 
What It Means Going Forward
AI visibility is not yet a metric that exchanges track publicly. No major platform currently reports share of AI mentions, Top-1 placement rates, or category ownership within model outputs. That's likely to change. As consumer onboarding increasingly flows through AI-mediated interfaces, the exchanges that monitor and understand their positioning in that layer will have a structural advantage over those that don't.
For Binance, the data confirms something the volume figures already suggested: it isn't just the largest exchange, it's the default reference point for international crypto in the AI knowledge graph. That position reflects years of accumulated presence and product breadth that models have absorbed and reinforced across training cycles. Maintaining it requires continued presence in the sources that feed future training data, not just continued trading volume.
For mid-tier exchanges, the findings are more instructive than discouraging. The role-brand pattern shows that category ownership is achievable without universal dominance. Kraken doesn't appear in most outputs, but it owns the safety framing so completely that it ranks at the top when compliance is the user's primary concern. Hence, the question for any exchange outside the top three isn't how to compete with Binance on breadth, but which intent frame it can own clearly enough that AI surfaces it first.
The training corpus inertia finding has a practical implication too. Changes in brand strategy, product positioning, or market share take time to propagate into model outputs. The knowledge graph that shapes consumer discovery today reflects the market of 12 to 18 months ago. Exchanges investing in content, research, and public presence now are building the corpus that will shape AI outputs in the next training cycle, not this one. That lag isn't a reason to wait. It's a reason to start earlier than feels necessary.
The broader point sits underneath all of this. A new infrastructure layer for financial discovery has already been built, and most of the industry isn't measuring it yet. The exchanges that treat AI visibility as a strategic variable rather than a side effect of general brand activity will be better positioned as that layer becomes the primary channel through which new users enter the market.
Appendix - Methodology and Limitations
Methodology
The study tested 30 prompts across four large language models: Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.4, Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen 3.6 Plus. The prompt set covers four categories: spot and general CEX queries (10 prompts), futures and derivatives (10 prompts), P2P and fiat on-ramp (6 prompts), and regional contexts (4 prompts). Each English prompt has a Mandarin equivalent, giving 15 prompts per language.
Each prompt was run in direct-answer mode without live internet access. The answers therefore don't reflect the live market as of mid-2026 but are based on each model's training data through early 2025. Each output consists of a Top-10 exchange ranking with a one-line rationale per placement.
Limitations
First, each prompt was run once per model. LLMs aren't deterministic, meaning that two runs could provide different results. Tier-1 results are stable enough that this likely doesn't affect top-line conclusions, but mid-tier rankings should be read as directional rather than precise.
Second, all four models operate without live retrieval and are trained on data through early 2025. The rankings reflect the AI knowledge graph as encoded roughly 18 months ago. Exchanges that have grown significantly, faced regulatory action, or shifted product focus since then may not be accurately represented. 
Third, all prompts are framed around international non-US users. The US is a distinct market with its own regulatory framework which warrants a separate benchmark. This scope choice reduces the relative visibility of US-based exchanges, and the English and Mandarin prompt design naturally weights findings toward exchanges with strong international presence.
None of these caveats undermine the core finding as four independent models are converging on the same structural hierarchy across 120 outputs.
Prompts used
Spot / CEX (English)
Which crypto exchanges are best for non-U.S. international users in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto exchange has the highest liquidity globally and is best for large traders in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
What is the best all-around crypto exchange for non-U.S. users in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto exchange is best for professional traders outside the US in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto exchange is the safest and most reliable for international users in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Spot / CEX (Mandarin)
2026年对国际用户（非美国）最好的加密货币交易所是哪些？
全球最好的加密货币交易所是哪家，适合国际用户？
哪个加密货币交易所全球流动性最高，最适合大额交易？
2026年最适合非美国用户的综合型加密货币交易所是哪家？
哪个加密货币交易所对国际用户最安全可靠？
Futures / Derivatives (English)
What is the best crypto futures exchange globally in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which exchange has the highest liquidity for crypto derivatives trading in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
What is the best BTC perpetual contract exchange for non-U.S. users in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto derivatives platform is best for professional traders in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which exchange has the deepest perpetual futures liquidity in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Futures / Derivatives (Mandarin)
2026年最好的加密货币合约交易平台是哪家？
全球最大交易量的加密货币合约交易所是谁？
哪个交易所最适合做 BTC 永续合约？
哪个加密货币衍生品平台最适合专业交易者？
哪个交易所永续合约流动性最深？

P2P / Fiat On-ramp (English)
Which crypto exchange has the best P2P market for international users in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which exchange is best for fiat on-ramp outside the US in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto platform is best for buying crypto with local currency internationally? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
P2P / Fiat On-ramp (Mandarin)
2026年哪个交易所的 P2P 市场最好？
哪个交易所最适合非美国用户买币入金？
哪个平台最适合用本币购买加密货币？

Regional (English)
Which crypto exchange is best for users in Asia in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto exchange is best for users in the Middle East in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Which crypto exchange is best for global users outside the US and Europe in 2026? Please rank the top 10 and give a brief one-line reason for each.
Regional (Mandarin)
2026年哪个交易所最适合亚洲用户？

The way people find information is changing. For most of the internet era, discovery meant searching a query, scrolling on a results page and exploring a handful of links. That model has been shifting since the arrival of AI.

The AI discovery layer: how LLMs are shaping the Crypto exchange visibility

Financial markets are entering a phase of convergence, where the historical separation between traditional finance and crypto is gradually breaking down. Assets, liquidity and users are no longer confined to distinct systems, but are increasingly moving across shared infrastructure.
In this context, platforms such as Binance are emerging as more than trading venues. By expanding access to traditional assets within a 24/7 crypto-native environment, they are beginning to act as a bridge between both systems.
This article explores that shift. It examines how traditional and crypto markets are converging, and how Binance’s expansion into commodities reflects a broader transition toward continuous, 24/7 price discovery across asset classes.
Two systems, one structural gap
For most of their history, traditional finance and crypto have operated as two separate systems. Crypto assets were traded on blockchain-native infrastructure, while traditional financial instruments remained confined to regulated exchanges, brokers and fixed trading hours. That separation is now breaking down.
Traditional markets are moving toward continuous trading
On the one hand, traditional markets are moving toward faster, more continuous trading environments. Nasdaq has announced plans to enable 24-hour trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, while NYSE Arca has received approval in 2025 to extend its hours as part of a broader shift toward near-round-the-clock access. At the broker level, firms such as Robinhood already offer 24-hour trading in selected U.S. equities, and platforms like Blue Ocean ATS were built specifically to support overnight trading.
These developments reflect a growing demand for global, always-on access to financial markets. An increasing share of activity now comes from investors operating outside U.S. hours, with around 70% of overnight volume originating from Asia. At the same time, a significant portion of market returns is generated outside regular trading hours. Between 2020 and 2025, SPY delivered +47% overnight returns versus +29% intraday, while QQQ posted +53% overnight versus +30% intraday.
Still, legacy infrastructure continues to impose constraints. Markets shut down for several hours each day, creating gaps in price discovery while news and capital flows continue to evolve. As a result, investors are often unable to react in real time and adjust their positioning accordingly.
Crypto infrastructure expanding beyond native assets
On the other side, crypto has already demonstrated what a continuous market structure looks like. Trading is always on, settlement is faster, collateral is more mobile, and users can manage positions without waiting for markets to reopen.
Interestingly, what began as a system designed for native crypto assets is now expanding beyond that scope to include more traditional financial exposure. Stablecoins were the first clear signal of this shift. Initially used as trading pairs, they have evolved into a broader financial layer supporting payments, derivatives, collateral, treasury management and yield strategies as discussed in our recent article on stablecoin usage on BNB Chain. 
The same dynamic is now visible across real-world assets. Since March 2025, the onchain RWA market has grown from approximately $4.3 billion to around $22 billion, highlighting that demand for traditional financial exposure within crypto environments is no longer marginal.
This migration is likely to continue, driven by advantages such as faster settlement, improved capital efficiency and composability. However, key limitations remain. Security risks, custody concerns, regulatory uncertainty and user experience challenges continue to act as barriers to broader adoption.
Convergence is the next step
Together, these dynamics highlight a structural convergence. Traditional markets are moving toward continuous trading, while crypto infrastructure is expanding toward traditional assets. The remaining gap lies not in demand, but in the infrastructure required to support continuous price discovery across both systems. This convergence becomes particularly visible when looking at specific asset classes.
Commodities as one of the first RWAs adapting to 24/7 markets
Among traditional assets, commodities provide one of the clearest illustrations of this shift. The broader commodity complex represents more than $135 trillion in nominal value, spanning energy, precious metals, industrial metals and agricultural products. In practice, most participants don’t seek physical delivery, but rather exposure through instruments such as ETFs, futures, options and perpetuals. 
In other words, commodities are well suited to market structures built around access, liquidity and continuous trading rather than ownership alone.
If the primary objective is always-on price exposure, then always-on crypto infrastructure is the obvious option. Audited reserves and transparent collateral backing can often be sufficient to recreate the asset’s economic function without reproducing the full logistical complexity of the underlying commodity. 
In that sense, bringing commodities onchain does not create a new market, but introduces a new 24/7 access layer to an existing liquid market.
The data shows that this shift is already underway. Tokenised commodities have grown from roughly $1.1 billion to around $6.4 billion over the past year, making them one of the largest real-world asset categories onchain after tokenised U.S. Treasuries. 
Growth remains highly concentrated, with roughly 95% of the market centred on tokenised gold through XAUT and PAXG. XAUT, at around $3.7 billion, and PAXG, at around $2.4 billion, form the backbone of the sector. Their holder growth has also been strong, with XAUT rising from roughly 3,000 to more than 30,000 holders and PAXG increasing from 48,000 to 98,000 within a year. This suggests that product-market fit is emerging first in the most liquid and familiar part of the commodity universe: gold.
The transition becomes clearer when looking at how these assets are used. Commodities onchain are no longer simply static representations held in wallets. They are increasingly traded across spot markets, perpetual exchanges and DeFi applications, reflecting a shift toward continuous, always-on market activity.
As an example, cumulative DEX volume for tokenised gold has increased from roughly $1.4 billion to more than $8.4 billion over the past year. The share of PAXG transactions routed through decentralised exchanges has also risen from around 5% to nearly 20%, suggesting that these assets are increasingly traded around the clock rather than merely transferred or stored.
This shift from passive exposure to active trading introduces a structural requirement. As commodities transition toward continuous, 24/7 markets, the infrastructure supporting them must evolve to enable deep liquidity, global participation and real-time price formation.
Binance as a 24/7 price discovery engine for commodities
Meeting these requirements demands infrastructure capable of sustaining continuous trading at scale. This is where platforms such as Binance play a critical role: providing access to commodities while enabling real-time price discovery through deep liquidity and perpetual markets.
Perpetual contracts serve not only as a tool for accessing commodities but also as a primary mechanism for price discovery. Unlike traditional futures, they trade continuously, incorporate leverage and enable constant positioning across market participants. Funding rates and arbitrage dynamics help anchor prices to broader market expectations, while high-frequency trading activity ensures that new information is rapidly reflected in pricing.
Early data suggests that Binance plays a key role in price discovery. In just a few months, Binance’s commodity perpetuals surpassed $153 billion in cumulative trading volume, with more than 113 million executed trades. This level of activity is a key component of price discovery itself. Continuous trading, dense execution flows, and global participation create an environment in which prices are formed dynamically rather than adjusted at discrete intervals.
The composition of this activity mirrors broader market dynamics, with gold and silver dominating. On March 3, daily trading volume reached approximately $3.77 billion for gold and $3.75 billion for silver, with earlier peaks even higher. On January 30, gold approached $4 billion in daily volume, while silver reached roughly $7 billion.
Trade counts reinforce this dynamic. In one session, total activity reached roughly 4.4 million trades, including 2.0 million in gold and 1.9 million in silver. On February 2, activity exceeded 6.3 million trades, with silver alone accounting for nearly 3.7 million. This level of continuous participation across time zones enables prices to evolve in real time rather than adjusting in discrete intervals.
This highlights Binance’s role on both sides of the transition. It lowers barriers for traditional users by providing 24/7 access through a familiar interface while, more importantly, enabling continuous price discovery. In traditional commodity markets, prices are formed within fixed trading hours, even though information, macro events and capital flows evolve globally at all times. This creates gaps where markets reopen with delayed adjustments rather than reflecting real-time conditions.
By contrast, Binance’s always-on trading environment allows commodity prices to update continuously as new information emerges. This results in a pricing mechanism that is continuous, globally distributed and more responsive to macro events unfolding outside traditional trading hours.
In that sense, Binance is not simply facilitating access to commodities. It contributes to a structural shift in price formation, moving from fragmented, time-bound markets toward continuous, globally integrated price discovery.

Financial markets are entering a phase of convergence, where the historical separation between traditional finance and crypto is gradually breaking down. Assets

When Markets Stop Closing: Binance and the Shift to 24/7 Finance

What always-on markets mean for liquidity, settlement, and market structure

Recently, we’ve observed irregular and significant losses in the value of certain tokens. These movements raise an important question: where is the line between market making and market manipulation? Dr. Rasit Tavus, the founder and CEO of LegalBlock warns that some activities by market makers cannot be classified as routine operations and should instead be regarded as manipulation.
To begin, it’s essential to understand what market making means in the context of cryptocurrency. Market makers receive a considerable amount of tokens and provide liquidity on specific trading pairs, allowing retail investors to buy and sell more easily. In return, they are typically compensated with tokens or through paid agreements with the token issuer or exchange. 
The goal is to create a liquid market that enables investors to trade with minimal slippage, while exchanges earn from transaction fees and token issuers benefit from higher demand. Ideally, this creates a win-win situation for all parties involved.
However, recent examples suggest some market makers may be manipulating token prices to benefit their own positions.
Binance recently raised concerns about a market maker who allegedly made around $38 million in profit from the listing of the Move token, while simultaneously influencing its price. 
Market makers are expected to enhance liquidity, not distort it. They are contracted to foster a stable trading environment, not to take actions that destabilise it. In this case, the behaviour appeared to prioritise personal gain over the creation of a functioning market.
Token issuers and project teams must never engage directly in price-related activities involving their own tokens. A recent incident involving Mantra Network’s $OM token serves as a warning. The token lost around 90% of its value in a single day. 
It appears that the team behind the project sold tokens at a lower price in an attempt to create artificial upward pressure. With a major holder offloading aggressively, the market failed to absorb the supply, resulting in a devastating collapse. This suggests that the previous upward movement had also been manipulated, rather than reflecting genuine demand.
When a project issues a token, it is generally accompanied by a whitepaper outlining the token’s intended utility. Direct involvement in price actions undermines that purpose and casts doubt on the token’s legitimacy. There is no rational reason to manipulate the price of a token that serves a genuine function. Such behaviour puts retail investors at risk and invites legal scrutiny.
The US Department of Justice has already announced investigations into suspicious price movements in cryptocurrency markets. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reportedly created its own token to interact with market makers — an indication of their commitment to monitoring pricing dynamics and their impact on retail investors.
Despite the decentralised nature of crypto, the United States claims jurisdiction over both DeFi and broader cryptocurrency markets. Unnatural price actions taken by market makers, token issuers, or exchanges could soon result in criminal investigations. 
To remain compliant with US laws and regulations, all market participants should avoid any activity that could be construed as manipulation and that may lead to financial harm for retail investors.

Recently, we’ve observed irregular and significant losses in the value of certain tokens. These movements raise an important question: where is the line between

Opinion: Why crypto market makers could face charges over price manipulation tactics

Dr. Rasit Tavus, founder and CEO of LegalBlock argues the legal status of Lazarus swap transactions falls into two categories: decentralised finance (DeFi) transactions and centralised service transactions.
Centralised services and liability
It is simpler to assess centralised services first, including cryptocurrency exchanges and mixing services. Any entity with a central authority must comply with international anti-money laundering (AML) treaties, requiring robust AML protections to prevent stolen assets — such as those from Bybit — from entering their platforms. 
Failure to implement effective AML measures constitutes negligence and legal liability. Given that Lazarus exploited these services due to inadequate safeguards, all fees associated with deposits, swaps, or withdrawals should be returned to the victim.
Centralised blockchain services operate globally but must comply with US regulations to remain within the USD-pegged blockchain ecosystem.
For instance, Binance and former CEO Changpeng Zhao returned illicit swap fees to the US Treasury as part of a plea agreement with the Department of Justice. This precedent suggests that in future cases, centralised services should return all swap fees to either Bybit or the US authorities.
DeFi platforms and legal responsibility
Decentralised mixers, bridges, and swap exchanges differ significantly from centralised entities. Their immutable and censorship-resistant nature means they cannot be negligent in the traditional sense. 
As long as transaction outcomes remain visible and do not obstruct stolen asset recovery, these platforms do not bear direct legal responsibility.
However, the question of whether they should return swap fees is more complex. 
In Dr. Tavus’ Ph.D. thesis, it been argued the concept of limited responsibility for validators, nodes, and miners. As long as a DeFi platform operates within its design, it holds no legal responsibility for transactions.
That said, these platforms engage in professional business activities and profit from them. If an illicit transaction occurs, demanding that stakers or liquidity providers return funds sets a problematic precedent, as there is no clear standard for distinguishing liability in such scenarios.
When DeFi platforms should act
While DeFi platforms may not be legally liable, they should not profit from sustained illicit activity. If a protocol repeatedly facilitates illicit transactions without intervention, scrutiny is warranted. 
In the Bybit case, ThorChain accumulated several million dollars in swap fees from illicit transactions over multiple days without any remedial action. At this point, returning these fees is the appropriate course of action.
Validators, who uphold the network’s integrity, should not benefit from illicit transactions. If they unexpectedly earn high margins from such activity, accusations of gross negligence for profit may arise. 
This presents a dilemma: are they passively profiting from illicit transactions, or are they upholding a censorship-resistant system?

Dr. Rasit Tavus, founder and CEO of LegalBlock argues the legal status of Lazarus swap transactions falls into two categories: decentralised finance (DeFi) tran

binance