AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron has challenged Robinhood’s claimed 1:1 stock token backing by asking whether shares supporting the products could be lent to short sellers.
Aron’s Sept. 12 statement directed a series of questions to Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev and Chief Legal Officer Dan Gallagher. The post followed their public defense of the company’s stock token business during the previous week.
Among the questions, Aron asked whether a token could still be described as backed one-for-one if Robinhood lent its corresponding share to a short seller. He framed the scenario as hypothetical and did not present evidence that Robinhood currently lends shares assigned to its stock token reserves.
Robinhood had not posted a public response addressing the collateral-lending question as of Sept. 13. Its published product documents describe the tokens as backed by underlying securities but do not make token holders registered owners of those shares.
In his latest post, Aron called the stock token model “abhorrent” and argued that it conflicts with the purpose of public share ownership. He questioned whether customers could misunderstand the rights attached to the products when Robinhood promotes them using the names and prices of listed companies.
“If those tokens are theoretically backed 1:1 by real shares, but hypothetically some of those underlying real shares are in turn lent out to short sellers, are the tokens really backed 1:1 in fact?” Aron wrote.
The question concerns the assets Robinhood holds against its token liabilities. Robinhood’s stock token documentation says Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited issues tokenized debt securities that provide economic exposure to an underlying security.
Robinhood says each public-company stock token is backed by a corresponding share. Its documents do not say that the token itself represents legal ownership of the underlying equity. A token holder instead holds a claim against the Jersey issuer. Aron did not cite Robinhood records, custody statements or onchain evidence showing that the corresponding shares had been lent. His post asked Robinhood to disclose how the backing operates if securities lending occurs.
Under Robinhood’s structure, the investor receives exposure to movements in the referenced stock’s price. The product can account for distributions such as dividends, but the holder does not appear on the public company’s shareholder register.
Token owners lack voting rights attached to the referenced shares. Robinhood’s Key Information Document characterizes the product as a derivative and identifies Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited as its manufacturer.
The document warns that investors depend on the issuer’s ability to meet its obligations. Ownership of a token therefore differs from direct ownership of AMC common stock, even when the token’s value tracks an AMC share.
Robinhood introduced stock tokens for European customers as part of an international expansion announced in 2025. The company later connected the product line with Robinhood Chain, its blockchain network for tokenized assets.
The products are not offered to U.S. persons. Robinhood’s expansion announcement says the stock tokens are issued through Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited and provide exposure to U.S.-listed securities. Aron questioned why Robinhood’s U.S. website promotes the concept when domestic customers cannot purchase the products. He described the Jersey structure as an offshore operation designed to function outside U.S. securities laws. Robinhood has not accepted that description.
Tenev defended the stock token model during a Sept. 9 CNBC “Squawk Box” interview. He argued that issuers control the rights and duties attached to shares they issue but do not control every separate financial product referencing their stock.
“Issuers should have control and do have control over the rights and obligations of the stock that they issue, but that doesn’t mean they control everything about it,” Tenev said.
Tenev stated that issuer consent “depends on what exactly you’re doing.” He maintained that Robinhood’s products “should not automatically require issuer consent,” although no cited court or U.S. regulatory decision has settled that position for Robinhood’s structure. Aron previously said AMC did not authorize, endorse or participate in the creation of its referenced token. In a prior statement, he called on Robinhood to stop offering the product and said AMC would consult securities lawyers about possible legal and regulatory action.
Gallagher rejected the demand publicly. “We know a little something about the U.S. securities laws and will not ‘DECIST,’” he wrote on X, reproducing a misspelling in Aron’s earlier post. Gallagher invited AMC to send its lawyers.
No public lawsuit filed by AMC over Robinhood’s stock tokens had been identified by Sept. 13. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had not announced an enforcement action involving the AMC-linked product.
Robinhood’s public material explains how token prices follow referenced securities, but its available summaries provide limited detail about the custody and possible lending of each backing share. Aron’s latest post asks the company to state whether reserve shares are kept unencumbered or can enter securities-lending transactions.
A securities loan transfers shares temporarily to a borrower under a separate agreement. Aron’s hypothetical question does not establish that Robinhood uses this arrangement for stock token collateral. A direct answer would require information from Robinhood or its custodian concerning the treatment of reserve shares.
The company has not published a token-by-token reserve register showing where each corresponding share is held. Its stock token documentation identifies the issuer and product mechanics but does not give token holders direct voting control over the referenced equity.
Robinhood therefore controls, directly or through its custody structure, any voting power connected to the underlying shares. Tenev has not announced how votes attached to stock token collateral are exercised. European regulators have raised separate concerns about products that track shares without transferring legal ownership. The European Securities and Markets Authority has warned that tokenized instruments may create investor confusion when buyers do not receive the governance rights attached to conventional shares, Reuters reported.
OpenAI raised a comparable ownership distinction in 2025 after Robinhood promoted a token tied to the private company. OpenAI said the instrument was not its equity and had not received the company’s endorsement, according to Reuters.
Robinhood maintains that its tokens can give eligible international customers economic exposure to U.S. securities. The company is developing Robinhood Chain to support tokenized assets, while crypto.news reported that its architecture creates a revenue stream for Arbitrum through chain-related fees.
As of Sept. 13, Robinhood continued to describe its public-company tokens as one-for-one backed. Neither Tenev nor Gallagher had publicly answered Aron’s specific question about whether shares assigned to that backing may be lent to short sellers.
