A few days ago AMC went after @vladtenev and @robinhoodapp. Now we see it from within. IMO it’s net negative, and whether you support model A or model B for tokenized stocks, it’s better to rally. Again, respectfully, this is inaccurate. The key words are “it could” and “allegedly”. Tokenized equities on RH are quite important to me, so I’m giving you a legal rant. Not a legal advice I'm not an expert but I read very carefully and aspire to understand every bit of the stack we use at LONG. Let’s start by explaining the structure! There are two important documents regarding stock issuance: 1. Base Prospectus, which represents general terms applying to all tokenized equities (btw these terms are 150+ pages long. I doubt so many have read them, but I did, at least portions). 2. FINAL TERMS, which are terms specific to one product (e.g. tokenized NVDA). What do they say in the case of AMC that was mentioned? Tokenized AMC is not some random SPV that issues shares out of thin air. It’s clearly defined as being backed by “underlying”. The Underlying is not shares of an SPV, cash or options. This is the actual AMC stock: “The issuer of the Underlying is AMC Entertainment Holdings… The Underlying is a share of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc..” Now, as you know, the stock market is not really 24/7 or even 24/5. During off market hours, it’s hard to trade at size, and price discovery is pretty much nonexistent. Which brings us to the next point: what needs to be done in order to bridge this gap and enable 24/7 liquid trading or at least better coverage around active mints/redeems This is where collateral comes in. Collateral is like a backing that can include cash or other instruments that enables to bridge the gap between the period where mint or redemption of tokenized shares takes place and the next “liquid” period (usually T+1, which is common with every major broker regardless of tokenization). Collateral is well defined in the Base Prospectus page 10 exactly: “the relevant Underlying (note: stock)… cash… any Underlyings have been lent… all funds and assets in transit in connection with the purchase and delivery of the relevant Underlying” In simple words, this is an accounting measure to ensure everything is backed 1:1 before the final stock is settled and held by a custodian(or moving out) + just capital efficiency measures. Does that mean that somehow a tokenized stock can have 99% cash and 1% actual stock as long as it's N AMC backed by equivalent cash? NO. Page 56: “Within the issuance and redemption processes, the Issuer will periodically buy and sell the relevant Underlying (again, stock)… There is also a risk that, in periods of low liquidity or market disruption, the Issuer may not be able to buy or sell the Underlying at the expected price or within the expected timeframe” Again, the goal is to move from the legacy old rails into something that would be as close to 24/7 market. The truth is, big portion of the debate around which model for tokenized stocks is more "pure" doesn’t really matter same as USDT VS USDC backing reserve. UX and price execution are what matter (where I can get the best price for my tokenized NVDA most of the time). @longdotxyz helped to bootstrap lots of the deep onchain liquidity on Robinhood, so I just made a quick comparison during off market hours. ~1m SPCX trade via Jup: -25% price impact ~1m RH SPCX trade via @matchaxyz: ~1% price impact I’m not trying to say one product is bad and one is good, but simply stating the facts from a POV of a founder running an app that generated $1b in total tokenized volume across many RH tokenized stocks 24/7. Robinhood is extremely robust! It also provides better security assumptions, as most of this liquidity is fully onchain within DEX pools. Now let's get back to winning. LONG.