Binance’s move into U.S. stock and ETF trading now has a clearer monetization model after the exchange disclosed revenue-sharing terms with Alpaca, the brokerage infrastructure provider powering the product. The arrangement ties Binance’s new equities business directly to order-flow economics and securities lending, two established revenue streams in retail brokerage.
Under Binance’s Securities Trading Terms, Binance receives 50% of Alpaca’s payment-for-order-flow fees and 65% of remaining stock-lending profit after users are paid their interest. That structure gives Binance upside from trading activity and idle-share lending, even though Alpaca handles execution, clearing, settlement and custody for the stock product.
Alpaca Becomes the Regulated Operating Layer
Binance launched access to more than 7,000 U.S.-listed stocks and ETFs on June 1, with fractional investing from $5 and 24/5 trading for eligible users. The product extends Binance beyond crypto without requiring the exchange itself to custody U.S. securities, because Alpaca’s regulated broker-dealer infrastructure sits behind the service.
Alpaca’s role is commercially significant. The company provides brokerage, clearing and custody infrastructure for Binance’s stock trading product, while Binance positions the service as part of a broader multi-asset platform strategy. The partnership converts traditional securities infrastructure into a crypto-native user experience.
The equity relationship deepens that connection. Binance disclosed a minority stake in Alpaca as part of the updated securities trading structure, giving the exchange financial exposure to a core infrastructure provider behind its stock and ETF rollout. That turns Alpaca from a vendor into a strategic dependency.
Order Flow and Lending Create New Conflicts to Monitor
The revenue split changes how risk managers should read Binance’s equities push. Execution quality, order routing and securities-lending participation now matter not only to users, but to Binance’s own economics, because PFOF and lending residuals feed back into the platform’s revenue model.
That does not make the model unusual in retail brokerage, but it does make disclosure and governance important. Payment for order flow can create perceived conflicts between revenue maximization and best execution, while stock lending requires clear user consent, collateral controls and transparent treatment of borrower demand.
Alpaca’s tokenized-equities footprint adds another concentration issue. In December 2025, Alpaca said it held 94% market share in tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs, with $480 million in tokenized assets under custody. A single infrastructure provider now sits at the center of multiple tokenized-equity and brokerage flows.
Counterparty reviews should examine Alpaca’s custody arrangements, routing controls, lending mechanics, outage resilience and regulatory posture before treating Binance’s stock product as equivalent to a conventional brokerage account.
For Binance, the structure accelerates its multi-asset strategy. The exchange can monetize equity access through brokerage-style economics while preparing future tokenized-share products, including its planned bStocks rollout.
The next test will be whether the model scales without eroding trust around execution, custody and user incentives. If Binance can keep the trading experience simple while maintaining transparent brokerage controls, the Alpaca deal could become a template for crypto platforms entering traditional securities markets.
