Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev Defends Tokenized Stocks in AMC Dispute

Vlad Tenev argues that public companies like AMC shouldn't have veto power over tokenized stocks as the sector grows to a $13.4 billion market cap.

The ongoing disagreement with AMC Entertainment has intensified, raising critical questions about who should ultimately control the transition of traditional equities onto the blockchain.

Tenev Defines Three Boundaries for Issuer Control

In a

Tenev maintains that while an issuer must retain control over the rights and obligations inherent to its own shares, this does not extend to every legal use of those securities once they are owned by investors. Furthermore, he argues that companies should not have authority over separate instruments issued by third parties that are simply based on those shares.

This perspective aligns tokenized stocks with existing financial structures like exchange-traded funds (ETFs), depository receipts, and structured products. Tenev has previously utilized these comparisons to argue that a company’s consent depends on the specific construction of the product, rather than the mere fact that it tracks the underlying stock price.

AMC Turns Tokenization into a Corporate Conflict

This stance follows a sharp reaction from AMC CEO Adam Aron, who criticized Robinhood for offering a token linked to the cinema operator’s shares without the company’s involvement or approval. AMC also raised concerns regarding the legal structure of the product.

Robinhood has remained firm. Earlier this week, Tenev stated that while public companies can set the terms for their own shares, they cannot control every security that other firms build on top of them.

The dispute is particularly significant for Robinhood, as the firm has made tokenization a cornerstone of its international growth strategy.

Tokens Do Not Grant Shareholder Status

Robinhood’s defense rests on the specific construction of these assets. “Stock Tokens” do not represent direct ownership of the underlying U.S. shares. Instead, they are tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, designed to provide economic exposure to the base asset.

According to Robinhood, each token is backed 1:1 by the corresponding share held through a U.S. custodian. However, the holder does not gain direct rights against the company behind the underlying stock, including standard shareholder voting rights.

This distinction is the heart of the conflict. AMC views the tokens as a parallel market that exploits the economic value of its shares without its participation. In contrast, Robinhood treats them as independent financial products whose existence does not alter the capital or rights associated with the original shares.

Stakes Rise Beyond AMC

This conflict could serve as a litmus test for the broader tokenized asset market. The market capitalization of tokenized stocks reached approximately $13.4 billion by September 1, a significant jump from roughly $2.5 billion at the start of the year, according to data cited by The Block.

For Robinhood, the priority is enabling access to U.S. capital markets for international users. The company pitches tokenization as a way for investors outside the U.S. to gain exposure to American companies through assets that can be moved and traded on a blockchain. Currently, “Stock Tokens” are unavailable to residents of the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Switzerland.

If Tenev’s position prevails, public companies would have limited power to block similar products built on their shares. Conversely, if issuers gain broader rights, it could create a new obstacle for the model Robinhood and other platforms are using to bridge traditional capital markets with blockchain infrastructure.