top of page
4Artboard 3_2x_edited_edited.png

The UK’s home for tokenised equity. Independent news, insight and resources for founders raising capital, investors deploying it, and the firms supporting both — as the regulation, infrastructure and opportunity converge.

AMC Chief Executive Demands Robinhood Halt Unauthorised AMC Stock Tokens as Robinhood Refuses and Threatens to Involve the SEC

Writer: Shawn Jhanji
Shawn Jhanji
4 days ago
3 min read
AMC gamestop bbby chief executive Adam Aron has demanded that Robinhood immediately stop issuing tokens tracking AMC's share price, escalating a public dispute that puts a sharp UK relevant question on the table: what happens to tokenised equity when the underlying issuer never agreed to it. Aron said Robinhood has offered tokens tied to AMC and more than 190 other listed companies without seeking those companies' knowledge or consent. He argues the products fail to comply with US securities law and offer buyers no real protection, and has said he intends to raise the matter directly with the Securities and Exchange Commission if Robinhood does not comply. Robinhood's chief legal officer, Dan Gallagher, rejected the demand outright, telling Aron to send his lawyers. Robinhood chief executive Vlad Tenev backed the response within minutes, saying the company stands behind its stock tokens. No lawsuit or SEC enforcement action had been announced at the time of writing. What the tokens actually are The products at the centre of the row are not equity in the conventional sense. Robinhood's stock tokens are ERC-20 tokens issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, a private Jersey registered entity, and are structured as debt instruments referencing a share price rather than direct holdings of the underlying stock. They are distributed under Regulation S, the US exemption that permits sales to investors outside the United States, and have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933. Aron has also pointed out that the tokens are already restricted from being marketed to investors in the UK, Canada and Switzerland, underscoring how far this product sits from a compliant UK offering. Why this matters for the UK tokenisation story The dispute lands at a moment when regulated venues are moving in the opposite direction. London Stock Exchange's own tokenised equity work with Payward, and the broader push toward PISCES linked liquidity for private company shares, are being built around issuer participation, custody structures that satisfy the FCA, and a clear chain of title back to the company register. Securitize's recent moves, including its Dubai VARA memorandum of understanding, follow the same pattern: the issuer is party to the arrangement, not a bystander reading about it in the press. The AMC and Robinhood clash is useful precisely because it draws that distinction so starkly. A token that references a share price without the issuer's involvement, without registration, and without a route back to real ownership is a fundamentally different product to the tokenised equity structures UK platforms, exchanges and law firms are working to build. Founders and investors who hear "tokenised stock" in the news this week should not assume it describes the same regulated, consent based model gaining ground in London. The episode may also accelerate US rulemaking. Industry commentary following the row has suggested the clash could pressure the SEC to move faster on clear rules for stock tokens, an area where the regulator has repeatedly delayed a tokenised securities exemption. A faster, clearer US framework would ultimately help UK platforms b

AMC Entertainment chief executive Adam Aron has demanded that Robinhood immediately stop issuing tokens tracking AMC's share price, escalating a public dispute that puts a sharp UK relevant question on the table: what happens to tokenised equity when the underlying issuer never agreed to it.


Aron said Robinhood has offered tokens tied to AMC and more than 190 other listed companies without seeking those companies' knowledge or consent. He argues the products fail to comply with US securities law and offer buyers no real protection, and has said he intends to raise the matter directly with the Securities and Exchange Commission if Robinhood does not comply.


Robinhood's chief legal officer, Dan Gallagher, rejected the demand outright, telling Aron to send his lawyers. Robinhood chief executive Vlad Tenev backed the response within minutes, saying the company stands behind its stock tokens. No lawsuit or SEC enforcement action had been announced at the time of writing.


What the tokens actually are


The products at the centre of the row are not equity in the conventional sense. Robinhood's stock tokens are ERC-20 tokens issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, a private Jersey registered entity, and are structured as debt instruments referencing a share price rather than direct holdings of the underlying stock. They are distributed under Regulation S, the US exemption that permits sales to investors outside the United States, and have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933. Aron has also pointed out that the tokens are already restricted from being marketed to investors in the UK, Canada and Switzerland, underscoring how far this product sits from a compliant UK offering.


Why this matters for the UK tokenisation story


The dispute lands at a moment when regulated venues are moving in the opposite direction. London Stock Exchange's own tokenised equity work with Payward, and the broader push toward PISCES linked liquidity for private company shares, are being built around issuer participation, custody structures that satisfy the FCA, and a clear chain of title back to the company register. Securitize's recent moves, including its Dubai VARA memorandum of understanding, follow the same pattern: the issuer is party to the arrangement, not a bystander reading about it in the press.


The AMC and Robinhood clash is useful precisely because it draws that distinction so starkly. A token that references a share price without the issuer's involvement, without registration, and without a route back to real ownership is a fundamentally different product to the tokenised equity structures UK platforms, exchanges and law firms are working to build. Founders and investors who hear "tokenised stock" in the news this week should not assume it describes the same regulated, consent based model gaining ground in London.


The episode may also accelerate US rulemaking. Industry commentary following the row has suggested the clash could pressure the SEC to move faster on clear rules for stock tokens, an area where the regulator has repeatedly delayed a tokenised securities exemption. A faster, clearer US framework would ultimately help UK platforms benchmark their own compliant models against a more defined global standard.


Key Takeaways

  • AMC's chief executive has demanded Robinhood halt stock tokens tied to AMC, alleging the products were issued without AMC's knowledge or consent and may violate US securities law.

  • Robinhood has refused, with both its chief legal officer and chief executive publicly standing behind the tokens.

  • The tokens are debt instruments issued by a Jersey entity under a cross-border exemption, not direct equity, and are already barred from marketing in the UK, Canada and Switzerland.

  • The row highlights the gap between unauthorised, issuer-absent stock tokens and the consent based, custody backed tokenised equity models being built in London and elsewhere.

  • Faster US regulatory clarity arising from this dispute would give UK platforms a clearer global benchmark to build against.


Sources:

Comments

bottom of page