Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev is pushing back against the idea that public companies should have the power to block third parties from creating tokenized products tied to their shares.
Tenev’s argument comes amid growing debate over who should control tokenized equities. He maintains that companies should retain authority over the actual rights attached to their shares, but that authority should not automatically extend to every independent financial product investors or financial firms create using those shares.
The comments follow criticism from AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron over Robinhood offering tokenized exposure to AMC shares without the company’s approval. Tenev recently defended the practice, arguing that issuers control their shares but not necessarily separate financial instruments referencing them.
Tenev Draws a Line Between Shares and Financial Products
Under Tenev’s framework, company approval would be appropriate when tokenization changes the underlying shareholder rights, replaces an issuer’s official shareholder register or creates additional responsibilities for the company or its transfer agent.
But he sees a different situation when a third party creates an independent product that merely tracks or is backed by freely transferable shares.
That distinction is important for Robinhood’s own Stock Tokens.
Robinhood CEO: Tokenized Stocks Do Not Need Company Approval if Underlying Share Rights Remain Unchanged
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) September 12, 2026
Robinhood Co-founder and CEO Vlad Tenev said that public companies should control the rights attached to their shares, but not every lawful use investors make of those shares… pic.twitter.com/FoHua4gMe0
Robinhood says each Stock Token is backed 1:1 by the corresponding underlying equity held through a U.S.-based custody partner. However, investors should not confuse the tokens with direct ownership of the underlying company.
Robinhood’s disclosures state that its Stock Tokens are tokenized debt securities providing economic exposure to the underlying security. Token holders do not receive legal or beneficial ownership rights in the company whose shares the product references. They are also currently unavailable to U.S. persons and in several other jurisdictions.
That makes the structure closer to a separate financial instrument referencing a stock than simply putting the company’s existing shares directly on a blockchain.
Read also: Robinhood Chain Activity Hits Record High
Should Companies Be Able to Block Tokenization?
Tenev’s broader argument is that blockchain technology shouldn’t give public companies new veto powers over financial products built around their shares.
Once shares are freely transferable, he argues, companies generally don’t control every lawful way investors and financial institutions subsequently use them. In his view, moving that exposure onchain shouldn’t fundamentally change that principle.
The debate could become increasingly important as tokenized equities move further into mainstream finance.
Robinhood has made tokenization a major part of its expansion plans, including plans for 24/7 public-company stock tokens and its own Robinhood Chain. Other major financial companies are moving in the same direction: Nasdaq recently agreed to invest $100 million in Kraken parent Payward as the companies deepen their work on infrastructure for tokenized equities.
The unresolved question is how regulators will draw the line between an issuer’s rights over its securities and the ability of third parties to create blockchain-based products referencing those securities.
Tenev’s position is clear: if tokenization doesn’t alter the underlying shares or impose new obligations on the issuer, putting stock exposure onchain should not automatically require the company’s permission.
For more crypto news and price predictions, click here.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for daily crypto updates, market insights, and expert analysis.
