The stock token debate, and the gap nobody can close alone
The argument over Robinhood’s AMC token has been about which tokenization model is legitimate, and the SEC has drawn a line. The question to ask now is what has to be true for any of it to be a market, argues Bullish’s Tram Doman.
AMC CEO Adam Aron called Robinhood's tokenized AMC shares a "quasi-fake market" and threatened legal action. Robinhood’s Vlad Tenev pushed back, saying a public company does not get to approve every product built on its stock.
In the wake of their social media dust-up, an argument over which kind of token is legitimate has ensued: a wrapped token, which is a claim on the underlying share, or an issuer-sponsored token registered with the transfer agent. The SEC issued a view on Sept. 17, granting a five-year exemption that lets tokenized U.S. stock trade onchain in the U.S. only where the token carries the same dividends, votes and class rights as the share. Synthetic exposure like Robinhood’s tokenized stock is excluded.
Across seven sessions between August 31 and September 9, Robinhood’s AMC token closed within 0.87% of AMC’s NYSE close price at the median, and 2.71% at the widest, as measured in the Uniswap pool that carries around 95% of its trading. While the underlying market is open, the price remains largely aligned.
Wrapped tokens have demonstrable utility, especially in emerging markets where access to US equities is restricted or expensive. Robinhood's Stock Tokens cover more than 190 companies across 120 countries; xStocks and Ondo do the same job through different plumbing. Outside the U.S., the model requires no agreement from the issuer, no entry on the shareholder register, and no authorization in each market. That is the source of its reach, and of the counterparty risk the holder carries.