Tenev Rejects AMC's Veto Over Stock Tokens

Highlights

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev said listed companies can't veto how third parties tokenize their stock.
The comments escalate a public feud with AMC CEO Adam Aron, who has threatened to involve the SEC.
Tenev argues issuers control the rights tied to their own shares, not what other companies build around them.
Robinhood's stock tokens are debt securities backed 1:1 by shares held as collateral, paying dividends but no voting rights.
The dispute is fueling a broader industry debate over who gets a say in tokenized equity products.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev pushed back publicly on the idea that listed companies can block third parties from creating tokenized versions of their stock, escalating a dispute with AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron that has drawn in questions of SEC oversight. Aron has accused Robinhood of creating what he called a "fake market" for AMC shares through the company's tokenized-stock product and has threatened to bring the matter to regulators. Tenev's response reframes the disagreement as a question of where an issuer's control actually ends: a company sets the rights attached to the stock it issues, he argues, but that authority doesn't extend to stopping other firms from building separate securities that merely reference those shares.

Robinhood's tokenized stock product works by holding an underlying share as collateral for each token issued, with the token itself structured as a debt security rather than a direct equity claim — buyers receive the associated dividend payments but not the voting rights that come with owning the actual share.

That structure is central to Tenev's argument: because the token is a distinct financial instrument built on top of, rather than identical to, the underlying stock, he contends AMC's objection amounts to a company trying to exert control over products it never issued and doesn't own. Tenev told CNBC that issuers control the rights and obligations of the stock they issue, but that doesn't mean they control everything built to reference it, and that in particular, they don't control other companies issuing their own securities that reference those shares. AMC's escalation, by contrast, treats the tokenized product as functionally competing with or distorting the market for its real shares — a framing that, if regulators embraced it, could hand every public company an effective veto over any derivative or synthetic product built around its stock, well beyond the options and futures markets that already exist without issuer sign-off.

Why the Fight Extends Beyond Robinhood and AMC

The stakes extend well past one dispute between two companies. Tokenized equities have become one of the fastest-growing corners of the crypto industry this year, with platforms built specifically around tokenized shares posting sharp gains in trading volume and holder counts even as the category's total value stays a small fraction of the broader tokenized-asset market. If AMC's position gains regulatory traction, it would hand every publicly listed company potential leverage to block or restrict tokenized products tied to its shares, fundamentally changing the economics of the sector and forcing platforms like Robinhood to negotiate — or seek licenses — on an issuer-by-issuer basis rather than launching tokenized products unilaterally. If Tenev's framing prevails instead, tokenized-stock issuers gain a much freer hand, but at the cost of leaving companies with no formal say over how instruments referencing their shares are marketed or priced. Regulators have already signaled they are rethinking the infrastructure around tokenized securities — the SEC's own proposed transfer-agent overhaul for tokenized securities is one sign of that — and how the agency responds to a fight this specific and public could set precedent well beyond Robinhood and AMC.

What Happens Next

Watch for whether AMC follows through on its threat to formally petition the SEC, which would force regulators to take an explicit position on issuer control over derivative and tokenized products rather than leaving the question to platform-level disputes. Robinhood, for its part, has continued pressing regulators separately to formalize rules that would let tokenized stock trading operate with fewer ambiguities in the US market, even as critics warn tokenized stocks could repeat some of Wall Street's own historical settlement growing pains if the underlying infrastructure isn't standardized first. How that broader push and the AMC dispute intersect — whether the SEC treats them as one policy question or two separate matters — will likely shape how aggressively other tokenized-equity platforms expand their own stock lineups in the months ahead.

FAQ

What is the dispute between Robinhood and AMC about?
AMC CEO Adam Aron has accused Robinhood of creating a "fake market" for AMC shares through its tokenized-stock product, while Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev argues companies don't have the right to block third parties from issuing securities that reference their stock.

How do Robinhood's stock tokens work?
Each token is backed 1:1 by an underlying share held as collateral and is structured as a debt security — holders receive dividend payments but not the voting rights attached to the actual stock.

Can a public company block a tokenized version of its own stock?
That's the unresolved question at the center of the Robinhood-AMC dispute; Tenev argues issuers control only the rights tied to the stock they issue, not derivative products other companies build to reference it.

Could the SEC get involved in the Robinhood-AMC fight?
AMC has threatened to bring the dispute to the SEC, and regulators are separately already reviewing rules around tokenized securities, so the case could influence broader policy on issuer control over tokenized equity products.