I’ll try to steelman the opposition position: RH tokenized stocks are probably disliked for the same reason non-sponsored ADRs are disliked: the company’s name is on something it didn’t authorize and doesn’t do things like revert unvoted shares to management control. The new (not old EU swap-based) RH tokenized stocks do not pass beneficial ownership, and are a debt instrument with exposure to RH itself potentially. Ondo put their backing into an SPV that’s designed for bankruptcy remoteness but the Jersey-issued RH tokens do not appear to be claiming remoteness from RH’s creditors that I’ve seen. Please correct me if you have seen otherwise. So from AMC or another company’s view, you have people who view themselves as shareholders, but are not actually shareholders holders. The RH tokens feel closer to a Contract-For-Difference. Legally, I suspect RH is right that everything is meeting the letter of the law, but from the public company’s perspective, the tokens create a big blast radius for you via vanilla creditors of Robinhood thinking they are owners in your company. ⬆️ That’s the steelman I’d construct for AMC et al. I think it breaks down if I’ve misunderstood how this generation of RH tokenized stocks are structured