Robinhood has rejected a demand from AMC Entertainment chief executive Adam Aron to stop offering a token linked to the cinema operator’s shares, with chief executive Vlad Tenev saying the company “stands behind Stock Tokens”.
The dispute centres on an important distinction: the product is designed to reflect the economic performance of AMC common stock, but does not give buyers ownership of AMC or any shareholder rights.
Dan Gallagher, Robinhood’s chief legal, compliance and corporate affairs officer, dismissed Aron’s request, writing that the company would not “DECIST” – repeating the spelling used in the original demand – and inviting AMC to send its lawyers.
Tenev subsequently said: “We stand behind Stock Tokens.”
Aron had initially said AMC had no connection with the token and that the company’s external securities counsel would review it. After Tenev asked, “What’s the concern?”, Aron listed several objections.
He argued that the product might blur the difference between economic exposure to AMC and ownership of its shares. He also said it could separate trading activity from AMC’s ability to raise capital and deny token holders the rights normally attached to AMC stock.
Aron added that AMC would refer the issue to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Those claims are allegations made by AMC. Robinhood’s own documentation sets out the structure of the product at the centre of the dispute.
The company describes Stock Tokens as tokenised debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, known as RHJ. They are intended to give eligible customers economic exposure to a referenced share or exchange-traded fund, but their holders receive neither a legal nor beneficial interest in the company behind that underlying asset.
The final terms for the AMC-linked product name RHJ as the issuer and AMC common stock as the reference asset. Robinhood’s asset registry listed the instrument as active when it was accessed on 4 September.
Under RHJ’s base prospectus, holders of the tokens are creditors of RHJ rather than shareholders in AMC. Their rights arise from the terms of the debt product and do not include voting rights, rights to attend meetings, pre-emption rights or direct rights to dividends from AMC.
Dividends and stock splits are instead reflected economically through the product’s mechanisms, including an onchain multiplier.
That structure allows the token to mirror elements of AMC’s financial performance while keeping its holders outside the company’s shareholder register. It is the separation between exposure and ownership that has prompted the disagreement.
Aron argues that Robinhood is using AMC as the reference point for a product that does not give investors an ownership interest in the cinema company. Robinhood presents the instrument as a separate security designed to provide economic exposure.
The prospectus also says Stock Tokens are not registered under United States securities laws. They cannot be offered, sold or delivered in the United States or to US persons. The products are issued through a Jersey-based entity for eligible customers outside those restrictions.
There has been no regulatory decision on the AMC-linked instrument. At this stage, the public record consists of Aron’s threat of legal and regulatory scrutiny and Robinhood’s refusal to withdraw the product.
For investors, the distinction is central. The token’s name and reference asset connect it to AMC’s economics, while the rights available to holders come from RHJ’s debt terms rather than from AMC shares themselves.
The argument has added significance because AMC was one of the defining companies of the 2021 meme-stock era, when retail traders organised online around a small group of highly volatile shares.
On 28 January 2021, Robinhood placed AMC, GameStop and other securities into position-closing-only status, temporarily preventing customers from opening new positions during the market frenzy. The Securities and Exchange Commission later examined that episode and the wider market-structure pressures linked to restrictions imposed by brokers.
Five years on, the same companies are again on opposite sides of a dispute over access to market exposure. Robinhood is offering an instrument linked to AMC, while AMC’s chief executive is calling for it to be stopped.
The comparison provides historical context, rather than establishing a legal conclusion. The 2021 dispute concerned Robinhood limiting access to AMC shares. The current confrontation is about whether Robinhood can continue providing AMC-linked exposure through a separate debt instrument despite the company’s objection.
AMC’s rise during the meme-stock period made direct share ownership and retail access to financial markets important parts of its public identity. Robinhood’s Stock Token model, by contrast, separates exposure to AMC’s economics from the shareholder rights and corporate relationship that come with owning AMC stock.
Aron is challenging that separation. Robinhood is defending it.
Liam Wright, also known as “Akiba”, is a reporter, podcast producer and Editor-in-Chief at CryptoSlate. He believes decentralised technology could help make…
CryptoSlate says it may use artificial intelligence tools to support research, editing and production workflows. Its journalism remains human-led, with the editorial team responsible for published articles. The publication directs readers to its full AI usage disclaimer.
The opinions of CryptoSlate’s writers are their own and do not represent the views of CryptoSlate. None of the information in its articles should be treated as investment advice, and CryptoSlate does not endorse any project mentioned or linked in its coverage.
Buying and trading cryptocurrencies are high-risk activities. Readers are advised to carry out their own due diligence before taking action based on the article. CryptoSlate accepts no responsibility for losses incurred through cryptocurrency trading and refers readers to its company disclaimers for further information.
Follow the signal
Never miss a market-moving update.
