Tokenized Stocks Debate Goes Beyond Issuer Consent, Bitfinex Securities Says

Bitfinex Securities says the real tokenized-stocks question is what a token represents, not whether issuers hold a veto

The head of operations at Bitfinex Securities has waded into the growing fight over tokenized stocks, arguing that the debate sparked by Robinhood’s Stock Tokens and the backlash from companies like AMC and OpenAI is being framed too narrowly. In an interview with crypto.news, Jesse Knutson said the central question is not whether issuers should control tokenized versions of their shares, but what each token actually represents, who is allowed to buy it, and where it can trade.

Knutson was responding to comments from Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, who rejected the idea that companies should hold a blanket veto over tokenized products that reference their stock. Knutson called Tenev “directionally correct” on the veto question, but said consent is only one part of a much broader market-structure problem that the industry has barely begun to resolve.

“The debate shouldn’t really be ‘does the issuer get a veto?’ It should be: what exactly does the token represent and who can access it?” Knutson told crypto.news.

Unsponsored products are not new to finance

Knutson pointed out that traditional markets already allow third parties to create instruments tied to listed securities without the issuer’s blessing. Unsponsored depositary receipts, which let banks offer exposure to foreign-listed shares without the underlying company’s involvement, are one long-standing example. The concept of an unaffiliated institution issuing a product linked to a public stock is therefore familiar terrain for regulators and market participants.

For large public companies with liquid shares, he added, an unsponsored tokenized product may actually be easier to structure than for private firms. Investors in listed companies already have regular access to financial statements, public filings and continuous price discovery, so a token provider can reference the listed security or hold shares in custody to support the product, depending on its legal design.

But identical company names can sit behind instruments with very different legal terms. One token may act as a debt security that tracks a stock’s price. Another may represent a beneficial interest in shares held by a custodian. A third, issued with the company’s sponsorship, could place registered equity directly onchain and retain all the rights of an ordinary share, including voting.

The Robinhood structure under scrutiny

Robinhood’s own products have placed exactly this distinction under the microscope. The company describes its transferable Stock Tokens as tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. Holders receive economic exposure to the referenced stock but do not become shareholders and gain no voting rights against the company.

That structure drew a sharp public rebuke from AMC Entertainment chief executive Adam Aron in September, after Robinhood listed an AMC-linked token without the theater chain’s approval or participation. Aron suggested AMC could ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to review the product, pulling the regulator directly into a dispute between a broker and the company whose share price the token tracks.

OpenAI raised a similar objection in July 2025, when Robinhood offered eligible European customers token exposure linked to OpenAI and SpaceX. The artificial intelligence lab stated that the tokens were not its equity and that it had neither partnered with nor endorsed the product. Robinhood said the exposure came through a special-purpose vehicle holding an economic interest linked to the private company, meaning buyers received exposure through Robinhood’s structure rather than shares issued by OpenAI itself.

Private-company tokens carry sharper information risks

Knutson drew his hardest line around products tied to private companies, where he said ordinary token buyers may end up trading with materially less information than the people who hold direct stakes.

“Unsponsored private equity is a lot more complicated due to potential information asymmetry. The underlying private investors in such scenarios will often have access to financials and reporting not typically allowed to be shared more broadly — while token investors trade only on headlines,” he said.

Private shares lack the continuous disclosure regime, public filings and constant price discovery that come with an exchange listing. Wrapping such an asset in a token does not change that underlying opacity; it simply distributes exposure to it more widely. The result, in Knutson’s telling, is a two-tier market in which direct investors see the financials while token holders see headlines.

Transfer controls are the other half of the problem

Beyond ownership terms and disclosure, Knutson argued that tokenized securities need protocol-level controls governing where tokens can actually move once transfers are enabled. A token that can travel between compatible blockchain addresses has a fundamentally different distribution footprint than a position in a conventional brokerage account.

“Listed companies obviously don’t want tokenized versions of their stocks ending up in sanctioned or prohibited jurisdictions,” he said.

Compliance in that model depends on smart-contract restrictions, approved-wallet lists, identity checks and redemption rules applied by the token issuer rather than by a broker’s compliance department. Robinhood, for its part, currently bars United States persons from acquiring the Stock Tokens issued by its Jersey unit, and its documentation states the products have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and cannot be offered, sold or delivered to American investors.

That restriction highlights the odd regulatory geography of the current market: U.S. customers cannot buy the blockchain tokens linked to their own domestic companies, while European users can, even though both groups end up with something that is not a share in the underlying firm.

Knutson’s position does not treat every third-party product as improper. His argument separates the question of whether an unsponsored product may exist from the disclosures investors need in order to understand its structure, counterparties and limits. As tokenized stock volume accelerates across exchanges and perps platforms, that framing — representation and access rather than veto power — may prove the more durable standard by which these instruments are judged.