Igloo CEO Luca Netz used Unchained Crypto’s podcast Uneasy Money to drop a big claim with almost no receipts. Netz told co-host Kain Warwick that Igloo has built a “new financial instrument” that could list crypto tokens directly on the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange.
The pitch is simple on paper and messy in practice. Netz said the tokens would trade one-to-one with crypto markets and remain redeemable onchain. He also framed the structure as a security, which he argued would allow a protocol to distribute revenue directly to token holders.
What Netz says Igloo built
Netz described the instrument as security-shaped rather than tokenized-fund-shaped. “The beauty about the structure is it’s actually defined as a security,” he said. His claim continues with a practical outcome he wants: protocol fees could flow “directly back to holders” through the platform, including “distributions of the protocol’s revenue directly back to shareholders.”
He compared the setup to “a cross between an IPO and an ICO built on traditional finance rails.” In that analogy, banks underwrite the raise and then the security model handles the distribution mechanics.
Netz pegged the underwriting and setup cost at $10 million to $20 million and said bulge-bracket banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would underwrite the raise. He used Aave only as an example of a DAO token that could list, not as an announced customer or deal.
For now, the company is not naming the product, offering a launch date, or naming a first listing. Netz called the project “happening.” That’s not a timeline.
How it differs from current token-to-Wall-Street routes
Netz’s critique went at two mainstream paths.
First, he argued that exchange-traded funds create “fee drag.” The desk already knows the problem. ETF structures often layer expenses on top of whatever exposure the investor gets, which can matter when performance is tied to an underlying crypto market.
Second, he said “digital asset treasury companies” depend on trading at a premium to net asset value. In other words, holders can get better or worse economics than the NAV implies, because the market can pay up or discount those vehicles.
Netz’s proposed alternative is the security structure. In his framing, it converts some of those frictions into a distribution pipeline where protocol revenue reaches shareholders or token holders directly, rather than being absorbed by an intermediary fee stack.
Regulatory context: Netz’s “security” label is not settled
The SEC context matters because Netz is making a classification argument, not just a technology pitch.
Netz’s characterization remains his own. The source text is explicit that this “remains his own, not a settled regulatory determination.” That line is doing a lot of work.
He also placed the disclosure inside a broader regulatory moment. The effort arrives as the SEC weighs an “innovation exemption for tokenized stock trading.” That debate affects how tokenized equities could move, and it’s part of the same general race to bring equities onchain.
The timing also overlaps with the hosts discussing Coinbase’s June 16 launch of 1:1-backed tokenized stocks, per the source text. Coinbase’s move is about equity tokens, not crypto market tokens. Still, it shows regulators and issuers are actively testing 1:1 framing across markets.
Who might lose room, and who might gain it
Netz said Igloo wanted to discuss the structure with Superstate, the Robert Leshner firm that already issues SEC-registered tokenized equities. If Igloo truly has a bank-underwritten, security-defined route to Nasdaq or the NYSE, the knock-on effect is obvious. It could compress the competitive space for tokenization formats that rely on trading structure rather than direct security issuance.
But the claim still needs validation beyond a podcast. No product name. No listing. No filings cited. No SEC outcome described. Until there’s documentation, all you can evaluate is whether the conceptual model explains the costs, redemption mechanics, and revenue flow Netz described.
What to watch next
There are three concrete next steps that would turn this from a concept into a trackable story.
- A product name and issuer structure that explains how it would qualify as a security under the relevant framework.
- A filing path tied to Nasdaq and NYSE listing requirements, not just the willingness of banks to underwrite.
- Any SEC interaction or decision related to the “innovation exemption” and how it could—or could not—apply.
Until then, treat this as a claim about a possible route, not a confirmed listing plan. In crypto, “happening” is the weakest form of scheduling.
| Claim (per Luca Netz) | What it implies for token holders | Missing info in the disclosure |
|---|---|---|
| Tokens could list on Nasdaq or the NYSE | Potential access to traditional market rails with onchain redemption | Product name, timeline, first listing |
| Tokens trade 1:1 with crypto markets and remain redeemable onchain | Designed to match underlying crypto pricing and allow exit via redemption | Redemption mechanics details |
| Structure defined as a security | A pathway for protocol revenue distributions to holders | No regulatory determination or SEC confirmation |
| Underwriting by bulge-bracket banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley | High institutional lift, likely high cost | Any named counterparties, any documented engagement |
| Cost pegged at $10M to $20M | Raises the bar for adoption by smaller protocols | No proof of completed spend or budget breakdown |