Kraken has rolled out new onchain yield vaults that let eligible customers earn returns on tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The exchange says its xStocks vaults will lend deposited assets through decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, distributing the resulting yield to users in the form of additional xStocks.

In a Monday announcement, Kraken specified that the first xStocks vaults support tokenized versions of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPYx), the Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQx), and Nvidia (NVDAx). Withdrawal requests are processed within three days, while yield is paid in the deposited tokens.

Key takeaways

• Kraken’s xStocks vaults generate yield by lending tokenized equities and ETFs through DeFi markets.
• Supported assets include SPYx, QQQx, and NVDAx, with yield paid in the deposited xStocks.
• Kraken says vault withdrawals are handled on a three-day processing timeline.
• The vaults build on the infrastructure of Kraken DeFi Earn, launched in January and reported to have attracted over $800 million in deposits.
• Availability is limited: xStocks vaults are offered in the European Economic Area and certain other jurisdictions, but excluded in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates.

How Kraken’s xStocks vaults work

Kraken’s new vaults are designed to convert tokenized equity exposure into an income-generating strategy. Customers deposit supported xStocks, and the assets are then lent out via onchain lending venues, with returns generated by the borrowing activity within those markets.

According to Kraken, this structure mirrors its existing Kraken DeFi Earn program, which launched in January. Kraken said DeFi Earn has since gathered more than $800 million in deposits, positioning xStocks as an extension of that approach into the tokenized equities category.

Withdrawals, Kraken added, are processed within three days. For investors, this detail matters because tokenized-assets yield products often differ not only by yield method, but also by the operational cadence of redemption.

DeFi strategy design, onchain execution

Kraken says the xStocks vaults are powered by Veda. The company also named Sentora as the team designing and managing the lending strategies used to produce yield.

On execution details, Kraken said assets are lent through DeFi markets such as Kamino on Solana. Sentora is responsible for setting exposure limits and monitoring key conditions including collateral, liquidity, and oracle inputs—factors that typically influence the safety and performance of lending-based strategies.

While Kraken did not outline further specifics in the announcement, the combination of a platform (Veda) and a strategy manager (Sentora) signals a separation between custody/deposit handling and the dynamic risk management layer that determines how the vaults interact with DeFi lending venues.

Broader momentum in tokenized equities

Kraken’s move lands as tokenized stocks and ETFs continue to accelerate. RWA.xyz data cited by Kraken shows the distributed value of tokenized equities has risen to about $2.84 billion, up from roughly $540 million a year earlier.

That jump highlights the shift from early-stage experimentation toward a larger, more established market for tokenized financial instruments. It also helps explain why centralized exchanges and regulated firms are increasingly interested in wrapping tokenized assets into yield products: demand for tokenized exposure is rising, and the next logical step for many platforms is to offer income generation rather than passive holding alone.

However, the economics of these products can vary significantly. In Kraken’s model, the yield mechanism is lending through DeFi markets, meaning performance is tied to onchain borrowing activity and the vault’s risk controls—variables that are distinct from traditional equity dividends or fund distributions.

Where xStocks vaults are available—and where they aren’t

Kraken stated that the xStocks vaults are available to eligible Kraken clients in the European Economic Area and other markets, but they are excluded in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates.

For users, these geographic constraints are often as important as the underlying product design. Tokenized equities have attracted heightened regulatory attention across jurisdictions, and exchange availability frequently reflects local licensing, investor eligibility rules, or how a product is classified.

In practice, this means European and select international clients may get earlier access to DeFi-linked yield on tokenized equities, while customers in excluded regions will need to wait for further regulatory clarity or product adjustments.

As Kraken expands xStocks, market participants will likely watch whether the vaults attract meaningful deposits beyond the existing DeFi Earn base, and how tokenized-equity liquidity and onchain lending demand evolve. The next question for investors is whether yield production remains consistent as tokenization grows—especially given the three-day redemption timeline and the reliance on DeFi lending conditions.

Bitfinex Securities has argued that the tokenized stocks debate must distinguish between third-party products and issuer-backed securities because each model gives investors different rights.

Tokenized stocks require clear investor rights

Bitfinex Securities Head of Operations Jesse Knutson told crypto.news that Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev was “directionally correct” to reject a blanket issuer veto, but said the debate should focus on what each token represents, who may buy it and where it can trade.

Tenev has said companies should not control tokenized products that neither change their shareholder records nor create new duties for them. His comments followed objections from companies whose names and share prices have been used in stock-linked products without their involvement.

Knutson said traditional markets already allow third parties to create instruments tied to listed securities. Unsponsored depositary receipts offer one example, making the basic idea of an unaffiliated company issuing a product linked to a public stock familiar to financial markets.

“The debate shouldn’t really be ‘does the issuer get a veto?’ It should be: what exactly does the token represent and who can access it?” Knutson said.

For large public companies with liquid shares, he added, an unsponsored tokenized product may be easier to structure because investors have regular access to financial statements, public filings, and market prices. A token provider can use the listed security as a reference or hold shares to support the product, depending on its legal design.

Even so, identical company names can sit behind instruments with different legal terms. One token may act as a debt security that tracks a stock’s price, while another may represent a beneficial interest in shares held by a custodian. An issuer-sponsored security can place registered equity onchain and retain the rights attached to an ordinary share.

Robinhood’s products have already placed that distinction under scrutiny. In September, AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron rejected an AMC-linked token because the theater chain had not approved or participated in its creation.

Robinhood describes its transferable Stock Tokens as tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. Holders receive economic exposure to the referenced stock but do not become shareholders of the company or gain voting rights against it.

Private-company tokens carry added information risks

Knutson drew a sharper line around products linked to private companies, where ordinary token buyers may not receive the financial information available to existing shareholders.

“Unsponsored private equity is a lot more complicated due to potential information asymmetry. The underlying private investors in such scenarios will often have access to financials and reporting not typically allowed to be shared more broadly — while token investors trade only on headlines.”

Private shares lack the continuous disclosure, public filings and regular price discovery associated with exchange-listed companies. According to Knutson, creating a token around such an asset can leave its buyers trading with less information than investors who hold a direct stake in the private company.

OpenAI raised a similar concern over the nature of Robinhood’s products in July 2025, when the brokerage offered eligible European customers token exposure linked to OpenAI and SpaceX. OpenAI said the tokens were not its equity and that the company had neither partnered with Robinhood nor endorsed the product.

Robinhood said its OpenAI exposure came through a special-purpose vehicle holding an economic interest linked to the private company. Buyers therefore received exposure through Robinhood’s structure rather than shares issued directly by OpenAI.

Knutson’s comments do not treat every third-party product as improper. Instead, his argument separates the question of whether a product may exist from the disclosures investors need to understand its structure, counterparties, and limits.

Transfer controls can restrict where tokens trade

Beyond ownership terms, Knutson said tokenized securities require controls at the protocol level to stop transfers into sanctioned or prohibited markets.

“Listed companies obviously don’t want tokenized versions of their stocks ending up in sanctioned or prohibited jurisdictions,” he said.

A token can move between compatible blockchain addresses once transfers are enabled, creating a different distribution route from a conventional brokerage account. Compliance may therefore depend on smart-contract restrictions, approved-wallet lists, identity checks and redemption rules applied by the token issuer.

Robinhood currently bars U.S. persons from acquiring the Stock Tokens issued by its Jersey unit. Its documentation says the products have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and cannot be offered, sold, or delivered in the United States or to American investors.

The restriction means U.S. customers cannot use Robinhood’s blockchain tokens as a substitute for buying the referenced shares through a domestic brokerage account. American investors remain able to purchase ordinary listed stocks under the ownership, custody, and disclosure rules that govern U.S. securities markets.

A recent Robinhood and AMC dispute also brought the Securities and Exchange Commission into the discussion. Aron said AMC could ask the agency to review the token, although neither an SEC action nor a lawsuit over the product had been announced at the time.

Knutson also identified price discovery as a concern when stock tokens trade on platforms with limited market surveillance. Weak monitoring could matter when a token changes hands outside the hours of the exchange where the referenced stock is listed.

U.S. shares generally stop trading on their primary exchanges at set times, while blockchain markets can operate continuously. Prices on decentralized venues may therefore move when the underlying stock market is closed, particularly during weekends or American holidays when traders cannot immediately arbitrage differences against the listed share.

Tokenized stock models offer different protections

Competition among issuers has produced several structures rather than a single standard for tokenized stocks. Coinbase, for example, introduced products on Base in August that represent beneficial interests in shares held through segregated custody.

The initial Coinbase offering included tokenized versions of Nvidia, Meta, Apple, and Alphabet. As previously covered in August, Alpaca Securities buys and holds one underlying share for each token at issuance, while a Coinbase-controlled company in the Abu Dhabi Global Market formally issues the securities.

Coinbase’s prospectuses distinguish beneficial ownership from being listed as the legal owner on the public company’s shareholder register. Verified holders may submit voting instructions, although the issuer’s ability to act on them remains subject to legal, operational and timing limits.

Other differences extend to dividends, redemptions, and insolvency claims. Coinbase’s documents say dividends are generally reinvested after fees and applicable U.S. withholding tax, while verified holders may request redemption in shares, dollars or an accepted stablecoin. Robinhood’s tokens place contractual claims against its Jersey issuer rather than against the company whose stock supplies the reference price.

“In the latter case, one of the biggest advantages of tokenization is actually the ability for issuers and investors to interact more directly, with greater transparency over ownership and potentially greater control over how the security operates,” Knutson said about issuer-sponsored products.

Both sponsored and third-party structures may remain in the market, he added, making the legal design important to an investor’s decision.

“The market is likely to have both models, but investors need to understand which one they’re buying.”

Attackers who tricked UK-based online bank Revolut into handing over sensitive customer information are currently releasing stolen details while allegedly threatening to keep leaking until the fintech coughs up over 10,000 BTC.

At current prices, that would put the ransom at roughly $780 million.

Revolut hasn’t confirmed the demand or authenticated any of the material currently circulating online. Many on social media have also expressed doubt that this ransom demand is real, with Revolut investor and crypto analyst Max Karpis pointing out that such a payment would be easily traced, making it extremely difficult to cash out.

Read more: Trezor’s summer of hacks continues with Brevo email breach

Attacker posed as government agency

An unidentified third party targeted Revolut over the weekend, using a legitimate government agency domain to pass the bank’s security checks and request customer information.

Information potentially disclosed included names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers, alongside copies of passports and driving licences.

According to Revolut, the number of affected customers was “very limited,” but it stopped short of giving a precise figure.

Customer notifications also reportedly referenced account statements, IBANs, withdrawal records and transaction histories, including BTC activity.

According to posts on X, the attackers are seeking 10,000 BTC in exchange for not releasing additional customer data.

The figure hasn’t been confirmed by Revolut and the bank has so far limited its public comments to confirming that customer data was disclosed.

Nor has the bank indicated whether it intends to negotiate with the attackers or if the alleged material circulating online is genuine or represents the full dataset stolen.