Bitfinex Securities has argued that the tokenized stocks debate must distinguish between third-party products and issuer-backed securities because each model gives investors different rights.

Tokenized stocks require clear investor rights

Bitfinex Securities Head of Operations Jesse Knutson told crypto.news that Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev was “directionally correct” to reject a blanket issuer veto, but said the debate should focus on what each token represents, who may buy it and where it can trade.

Tenev has said companies should not control tokenized products that neither change their shareholder records nor create new duties for them. His comments followed objections from companies whose names and share prices have been used in stock-linked products without their involvement.

Knutson said traditional markets already allow third parties to create instruments tied to listed securities. Unsponsored depositary receipts offer one example, making the basic idea of an unaffiliated company issuing a product linked to a public stock familiar to financial markets.

“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 said.

For large public companies with liquid shares, he added, an unsponsored tokenized product may be easier to structure because investors have regular access to financial statements, public filings, and market prices. A token provider can use the listed security as a reference or hold shares to support the product, depending on its legal design.

Even so, identical company names can sit behind instruments with different legal terms. One token may act as a debt security that tracks a stock’s price, while another may represent a beneficial interest in shares held by a custodian. An issuer-sponsored security can place registered equity onchain and retain the rights attached to an ordinary share.

Robinhood’s products have already placed that distinction under scrutiny. In September, AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron rejected an AMC-linked token because the theater chain had not approved or participated in its creation.

Robinhood 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 of the company or gain voting rights against it.

Private-company tokens carry added information risks

Knutson drew a sharper line around products linked to private companies, where ordinary token buyers may not receive the financial information available to existing shareholders.

“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.”

Private shares lack the continuous disclosure, public filings and regular price discovery associated with exchange-listed companies. According to Knutson, creating a token around such an asset can leave its buyers trading with less information than investors who hold a direct stake in the private company.

OpenAI raised a similar concern over the nature of Robinhood’s products in July 2025, when the brokerage offered eligible European customers token exposure linked to OpenAI and SpaceX. OpenAI said the tokens were not its equity and that the company had neither partnered with Robinhood nor endorsed the product.

Robinhood said its OpenAI exposure came through a special-purpose vehicle holding an economic interest linked to the private company. Buyers therefore received exposure through Robinhood’s structure rather than shares issued directly by OpenAI.

Knutson’s comments do not treat every third-party product as improper. Instead, his argument separates the question of whether a product may exist from the disclosures investors need to understand its structure, counterparties, and limits.

Transfer controls can restrict where tokens trade

Beyond ownership terms, Knutson said tokenized securities require controls at the protocol level to stop transfers into sanctioned or prohibited markets.

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

A token can move between compatible blockchain addresses once transfers are enabled, creating a different distribution route from a conventional brokerage account. Compliance may therefore depend on smart-contract restrictions, approved-wallet lists, identity checks and redemption rules applied by the token issuer.

Robinhood currently bars U.S. persons from acquiring the Stock Tokens issued by its Jersey unit. Its documentation says the products have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and cannot be offered, sold, or delivered in the United States or to American investors.

The restriction means U.S. customers cannot use Robinhood’s blockchain tokens as a substitute for buying the referenced shares through a domestic brokerage account. American investors remain able to purchase ordinary listed stocks under the ownership, custody, and disclosure rules that govern U.S. securities markets.

A recent Robinhood and AMC dispute also brought the Securities and Exchange Commission into the discussion. Aron said AMC could ask the agency to review the token, although neither an SEC action nor a lawsuit over the product had been announced at the time.

Knutson also identified price discovery as a concern when stock tokens trade on platforms with limited market surveillance. Weak monitoring could matter when a token changes hands outside the hours of the exchange where the referenced stock is listed.

U.S. shares generally stop trading on their primary exchanges at set times, while blockchain markets can operate continuously. Prices on decentralized venues may therefore move when the underlying stock market is closed, particularly during weekends or American holidays when traders cannot immediately arbitrage differences against the listed share.

Tokenized stock models offer different protections

Competition among issuers has produced several structures rather than a single standard for tokenized stocks. Coinbase, for example, introduced products on Base in August that represent beneficial interests in shares held through segregated custody.

The initial Coinbase offering included tokenized versions of Nvidia, Meta, Apple, and Alphabet. As previously covered in August, Alpaca Securities buys and holds one underlying share for each token at issuance, while a Coinbase-controlled company in the Abu Dhabi Global Market formally issues the securities.

Coinbase’s prospectuses distinguish beneficial ownership from being listed as the legal owner on the public company’s shareholder register. Verified holders may submit voting instructions, although the issuer’s ability to act on them remains subject to legal, operational and timing limits.

Other differences extend to dividends, redemptions, and insolvency claims. Coinbase’s documents say dividends are generally reinvested after fees and applicable U.S. withholding tax, while verified holders may request redemption in shares, dollars or an accepted stablecoin. Robinhood’s tokens place contractual claims against its Jersey issuer rather than against the company whose stock supplies the reference price.

“In the latter case, one of the biggest advantages of tokenization is actually the ability for issuers and investors to interact more directly, with greater transparency over ownership and potentially greater control over how the security operates,” Knutson said about issuer-sponsored products.

Both sponsored and third-party structures may remain in the market, he added, making the legal design important to an investor’s decision.

“The market is likely to have both models, but investors need to understand which one they’re buying.”

Attackers who tricked UK-based online bank Revolut into handing over sensitive customer information are currently releasing stolen details while allegedly threatening to keep leaking until the fintech coughs up over 10,000 BTC.

At current prices, that would put the ransom at roughly $780 million.

Revolut hasn’t confirmed the demand or authenticated any of the material currently circulating online. Many on social media have also expressed doubt that this ransom demand is real, with Revolut investor and crypto analyst Max Karpis pointing out that such a payment would be easily traced, making it extremely difficult to cash out.

Read more: Trezor’s summer of hacks continues with Brevo email breach

Attacker posed as government agency

An unidentified third party targeted Revolut over the weekend, using a legitimate government agency domain to pass the bank’s security checks and request customer information.

Information potentially disclosed included names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers, alongside copies of passports and driving licences.

According to Revolut, the number of affected customers was “very limited,” but it stopped short of giving a precise figure.

Customer notifications also reportedly referenced account statements, IBANs, withdrawal records and transaction histories, including BTC activity.

According to posts on X, the attackers are seeking 10,000 BTC in exchange for not releasing additional customer data.

The figure hasn’t been confirmed by Revolut and the bank has so far limited its public comments to confirming that customer data was disclosed.

Nor has the bank indicated whether it intends to negotiate with the attackers or if the alleged material circulating online is genuine or represents the full dataset stolen.

Tariffs and Iran

WTI crude oil futures, YTD

Advertisement

Fed’s credibility at stake

The president has forced Warsh’s hand to hike in another, more subtle way. By calling so publicly for rate cuts and picking a Fed chairman whom he suggested was on board, the president undermined his own chair’s credibility from day one. The proof of this came from Warsh’s first congressional testimony where he said a sign of his independence came in his failure so far to cut rates as the president had desired.

Warsh would be unlikely to hike solely because of the credibility issue. But it could play a factor if it’s a close call, where the new chairman and the Fed would have more to lose by not hiking. Numerous Fed observers have noted that the chairman’s reputation faces a test this week after his hawkish speech in Jackson Hole.

“Everything is pointing in the direction of September as a time to move if Warsh and his colleagues are going to maintain credibility,” former Vice Chair Roger Ferguson said on CNBC.

Now, with inflation above target and no visibility on lower oil prices or stability of tariffs, the Fed chairman needs to pass the test that has faced his predecessors: proving to markets he’s willing to risk a downturn and defy the administration to combat inflation, no matter what party is in power.

It is never the Federal Reserve’s place to judge administration policy as good or bad. Its only job is to assess their impact on the economy. On that basis, given recent developments in Iran and the Trump administration’s actions regarding tariffs, it would seem difficult for the Fed to assess them as anything but leading to higher inflation in the months ahead.

Advertisement

Back in June, proof-of-reserves for Justin Sun-owned HTX revealed a roughly-700 million drop in the quantity of TRX held at the exchange.

At today’s prices, these 700 million tokens are worth about $238 million.

A substantial portion of these assets ended up flowing into an address that supports Sun-owned Poloniex’s Super Representative, while some went to Binance.

Since then, HTX has been sanctioned by the European Union and the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, making the location of HTX funds extraordinarily important.

Additionally, in the same proof-of-reserves where it disclosed the drop in TRX, it also reduced its disclosure for over $1 billion worth of other assets, now pointing towards an undisclosed “ThirdParty” custodian.

Protos was previously able to track a large portion of HTX’s Ethereum reserves to Poloniex.

Read more: Justin Sun’s Poloniex and HTX withdraw huge amounts from AAVE

We’ve since been able to track a portion of the TRX flow out of HTX before that June proof-of-reserves.

Specifically, in May, HTX moved 700 million TRX out of TAuUCiH4JVNBZmDnEDZkXEUXDARdGpXTmX, labeled as “HTX-Cold 6” and disclosed in the HTX proof-of-reserves.

Advertisement

This TRX was sent to multiple other addresses that we were able to identify.

Two hundred million of these tokens were sent to TPznYuGCgYSWW8boAnFVMvv3RhNKqFaVpL.

These tokens were then forwarded to TFTWNgDBkQ5wQoP8RXpRznnHvAVV8x5jLu, an address which is labeled as “HTX 4” on Tronscan, which is also an address that was included in the proof-of-reserves (but has since been removed and never included TRX in its disclosed assets).

Of these 200 million tokens, 180 million were sent in two transactions to TEF9ZVUxhmGGffvkf59e2vdLfAG1QCMb7B (TEF9).

This unlabeled address currently votes 928 million TRX for the Poloniex Super Representative.

Returning to the other 500 million tokens, those funds were sent to TT2T17KZhoDu47i2E4FWxfG79zdkEWkU9N (TT2).

Advertisement

This is a notorious and controversial address.

Arkham Intelligence tags it as “Justin Sun?” It’s also an important redeemer of TrueUSD, a stablecoin deeply connected to Sun.

TT2 has delegated energy to HTX 4 before.

However, it’s worth noting that Sun has been evasive when asked about this address by Bloomberg previously.

Advertisement

However, the day before these funds came in, TT2 made some interesting transactions.

It started by sending 100 million TRX to TEgMTsmbVbjGK9bSeEjkZmcE8EFW8iJ8RT, which immediately sent 100 million TRX to HTX 4.

HTX 4 then forwarded those funds to TGPeN3mRTtYaAPvkPH2RJYwUQVcjYvMRS3.

These funds were then forwarded to TDqSquXBgUCLYvYC4XZgrprLK589dkhSCf, an address that TRONScan labels as Binance-Hot 7.

So before receiving 500 million TRX out of the HTX reserves, it sent 100 million TRX to Binance.

Advertisement

That wasn’t the only interesting set of transfers out of TT2 that day.

It also sent 180 million TRX to TBRoa9xabNSTXTSK6iQAMPQQ7CNo2j2yuF.

This address quickly forwarded these funds to HTX 4.

HTX 4 then sent these funds onward, again, in two transactions to TEF9.

Advertisement

It also sent 35 million TRX to TT2, in some sense creating a loop of funds.

Broadly, this shows millions of dollars in TRX moving from HTX to a variety of addresses, including one address that supports Poloniex.

They also moved in a pattern similar to the stETH that Protos previously tracked out of HTX, including the use of briefly used burners.

However, we should note that these represent less than 10% of the total TRX held at HTX, and the most recent disclosure claims a total of 9.3 billion TRX, with 922 million of those currently lent on JustLend.

Advertisement

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.