The Rush to Tokenize Stocks: Innovation or Regulatory Trap?
The financial landscape is witnessing a rapid emergence of stock-linked tokens, with major platforms like Robinhood, Gemini, and Kraken launching these digital instruments, particularly in Europe. Nasdaq has even become the first major exchange to propose offering tokenized shares, signaling a significant shift in mainstream finance. The market for these retail-focused tokenized public stocks has ballooned to $412 million, up from just a few million the previous year. Proponents champion a future of 24/7 trading, instant settlement, and reduced transaction costs. However, this innovation is moving faster than regulation, creating a complex web of risks for investors, corporate treasuries, and market stability.
The Core of the Concern: Rights and Regulatory Gaps
The central issue lies in the nature of the product itself. While often marketed like stocks, these tokens rarely confer the same rights and protections as traditional equities. As Diego Ballon Ossio, a partner at Clifford Chance, explains, “You’re buying exposures to those shares through synthetic instruments… A lot of the burden shifts to you to understand what exactly it is that you’re buying”. Key investor protections are frequently absent:
-
No Ownership Rights: Holders typically do not receive voting rights or traditional dividends, meaning they have no say in corporate governance.
-
Counterparty Risk: Investors are exposed to the financial health of the token issuer, as the value of the token is dependent on the issuer’s ability to honor the commitment, unlike a directly held stock.
-
Structural Variations: Some issuers, like Ondo Finance and Dinari, back tokens 1:1 with real stocks, while others simply mimic price exposure through derivatives, creating a confusing landscape for investors. This lack of standardization means that two tokens pegged to the same company, like Nvidia or Tesla, can have vastly different structures and terms.
Regulators are taking note. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reiterated that “tokenized securities are still securities”, emphasizing that the same legal requirements apply to on- and off-chain versions of these instruments. The industry, however, remains divided on which regulations apply, leaving many products in a gray area, treated as contracts for difference (CFDs) or other unregistered instruments. This ambiguity was highlighted when Robinhood’s token tied to OpenAI sparked backlash from the AI company, which stated it had not authorized the offering.
Navigating the Risks and the Road Ahead
For traders and corporate treasuries, this environment demands caution. The fragmentation of liquidity across parallel, unregulated markets can distort price discovery and lead to sharper, less predictable moves. Furthermore, the cross-border nature of blockchain technology complicates enforcement, as value can move across jurisdictions in seconds, creating regulatory arbitrage opportunities and hampering investor protection.
Authorities are beginning to respond. In the U.S., powerful Wall Street players like Citadel Securities have urged regulators to tighten oversight, warning that tokenization could drain liquidity from public markets and that major structural changes should go through a formal rulemaking process. The World Federation of Exchanges has also called for a crackdown on tokenization, citing insufficient investor protections.
Until clearer rules are established, operators and treasuries would be wise to cap their exposure to these instruments. The market is racing against the regulatory calendar, and the next milestone is likely to be a wave of investigations and final classifications by bodies like the SEC. As the industry forges ahead, the fundamental principle remains: the technology may be new and enchanting, but it does not magically transform the nature of the underlying asset or the obligations of those who distribute it.
