On October 13, AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron posted a sharply worded open letter on the X platform, again naming Robinhood co-founder Vlad Tenev and executive Dan Gallagher, demanding they respond to a core issue he views as a “matter of principle”: whether Robinhood's overseas operations in Jersey truly operate under the same principles established by SEC's new rules regarding stock tokenization. Robinhood had previously publicly stated its support for the SEC's new framework on stock tokenization in the U.S. but Aron is concerned that this “support” may be limited to business under U.S. licenses and could shift to a more lenient approach when it comes to Jersey, creating regulatory arbitrage opportunities between different forms of the same U.S. stock. As the leader of a publicly traded U.S. company, he understands that once AMC's stock is tokenized, the choice of jurisdiction by the platform and the rules it operates under will directly impact the rights arrangements between the company and its shareholders, hence the repeated use of “shame, shame, shame” in his letter, publicly pressuring Robinhood for a clear response. This letter was quickly reported by several Chinese cryptocurrency and finance media outlets, bringing the substance of the controversy into the spotlight: when traditional brokerage platforms involve themselves in crypto products and relocate to offshore centers, can they possibly operate under the guise of “local compliance” while tacitly permitting a different regulatory logic offshore.
AMC CEO's Open Letter Singles Out Robinhood
On October 13, Adam Aron chose not to hold a conference call or closed-door communication but instead took to X with an “open letter” targeting Robinhood co-founder Vlad Tenev and executive Dan Gallagher. He began by addressing Robinhood's international layout, particularly the stock tokenization business under Jersey's offshore operations, posing a seemingly simple yet highly damaging question: since Robinhood has publicly stated its support for the SEC's new rules on stock tokenization in the U.S., will the same principles also be enforced on relevant products operating under offshore structures like Jersey?
This is not the first time Aron has raised the question; instead, it continues a “second round of offensives,” shifting the focus from abstract positions to specific jurisdictions and products. He directly pointed out in his letter that if Robinhood only adheres to the SEC framework within the U.S. but allows offshore operations in Jersey to operate under a different set of rules, that would be a “misinterpretation and mockery” of the SEC's advocated direction, essentially treating regulatory consensus as a facade for the U.S. market. At the end of the open letter, he write “shame, shame, shame” three times, accusing Robinhood of withholding a direct response and deliberately dragging a compliance dispute that could have been resolved through internal inquiry into the public arena, and forcing the platform to clarify its stance on whether global compliance standards are “applied consistently.”
From Supporting the SEC to Offshore Silence
It is because Robinhood has publicly taken a bold stand alongside the SEC in the U.S. by supporting the new regulations regarding stock tokenization that Aron seized on the issue: if you accept the boundaries drawn by the SEC for the U.S. market, then shouldn’t the same principles also constrain the tokenization of the same U.S. stock in Jersey? He directly highlighted this contradiction in his open letter—so far, Robinhood has not provided detailed explanations on how its Jersey offshore operations align with SEC principles, despite repeatedly emphasizing its compliance stance in the U.S. For AMC, a publicly traded U.S. company, once its stock is tokenized, it will fall under the platform's global compliance structure, hence Aron sharply summed up the issue: one cannot carry the SEC banner in the U.S. and quietly switch to another operating manual once in offshore jurisdictions.
From a regulatory perspective, such a “selective support for regulation” approach is inherently risky: on one hand, it could be interpreted as treating the SEC's new rules as a PR symbol for internal purposes while seeking regulatory arbitrage in offshore financial centers like Jersey; on the other hand, it could weaken the “compliance consensus” forming between regulators and the platform—when a platform is questioned for applying two sets of standards to the same type of product, even if the SEC does not intervene immediately, it would be hard to ignore such signals. What Aron repeatedly pursued is not technical details but rather whether Robinhood is willing to provide verifiable evidence to regulators, issuers, and investors that supporting the SEC is not just a slogan meant for the U.S. market, but a complete commitment that extends to its offshore operations.
Jersey License and Regulatory Gaps
In the territory described by Aron, Jersey is not an inconsequential offshore island but a gray area where rules can be “rewritten.” As a well-known offshore financial center, Jersey has its own local financial regulatory framework, which does not completely align with the U.S. securities regulatory system centered around the SEC (according to a single source summary). In the U.S., stock tokenization has been incorporated into the existing securities law context by the SEC's new rules, and Robinhood has publicly stated its support for this direction; however, once business is “moved” to Jersey, local regulators are not obliged to define, disclose, and manage such products according to SEC standards, thus leaving room for different compliance logics to be applied to the same underlying assets under different jurisdictions.
The reason Aron named “Jersey offshore operations” in his open letter is not about the technology but whether it is designed as a compliance arbitrage node (according to a single source). The core of his questioning is: should the stock tokenization business that Robinhood accepts under SEC new rules within the U.S. still adhere to the same principles when it reaches Jersey, or should it be able to “rename” risks based on local licenses and regulatory differences? The focus of the controversy is whether the stock tokenization principles established by the SEC have practical enforceability in offshore jurisdictions like Jersey, or if they remain merely a verbal commitment to “support U.S. market regulation.” To date, no public information has disclosed specific models, scales, or types of tokenized assets for Robinhood's stock tokenization business in Jersey, nor has there been a systematic response on how it will implement SEC principles locally (according to a single source), which effectively places the boundaries and gray areas of the SEC’s new rules on extraterritorial application in the hands of the platform.
Tokenization Risks Concerned by Public Companies
From the perspective of AMC as a publicly traded U.S. company, Aron is focused not on the technology itself but rather on “who, under what rules, is moving my stock into another market structure.” Once AMC stock is tokenized by platforms like Robinhood, the choice of compliance pathway in offshore jurisdictions like Jersey effectively determines the regulatory attributes and risk profile of AMC’s equity in the blockchain world (according to a single source). Aron repeatedly questioning Robinhood about its global stance serves as a reminder: issuers are unaware of the form their stocks will take or under what regulatory standards they will be repackaged; if a platform openly “supports SEC new rules” in the U.S. but operates under a different approach offshore, when accountability or public scrutiny arises, it will be difficult to completely clear the issuer from blame.
By using terms like “misinterpretation and mockery” and “shame, shame, shame,” Aron points directly to the potential legal and reputational repercussions created by such a division of rules (according to a single source): ● For regulators, if offshore tokenization essentially replicates the same U.S. stock but does not operate under SEC principles, it can easily be viewed as intentionally evading regulation; ● For issuers, once offshore products face issues like manipulation, misleading sales, or gaps in investor protection, the market will first look to the underlying stock and its management. Hence, AMC's concern is not whether Robinhood engages in business, but whether it is willing to globally commit to adhering to the “best practices” advocated by the SEC for all products related to AMC securities (general compliance risk assessment).
This issue will not only trouble AMC. Any U.S. issuer whose stock may be tokenized offshore by crypto brokerages faces the same game: platforms wish to retain regulatory arbitrage space while issuers aim to ensure they are not passively drawn into a “rules vacuum.” Robinhood has yet to provide a systematic response on its Jersey operations (according to a single source), but has already become a sample case discussed in the capital markets through reports by various Chinese cryptocurrency and finance media (according to a single source). Moving forward, whether issuers and platforms can incorporate tokenization into a unified regulatory framework through contracts and disclosures, or whether different jurisdictional standards will continue to tear them apart, will largely determine whether stock tokenization in the U.S. becomes a tool for publicly traded companies or an uncontrollable compliance minefield.
Next Steps for Regulation and Platforms
Aron's open letter that questions Robinhood with “shame, shame, shame” essentially pressures crypto brokerages like Robinhood to clarify: should they establish a set of globally unified compliance standards based on the SEC's new rules for stock tokenization, or continue to operate in a gray area of “compliance within the U.S., another set offshore.” The SEC has provided a basic framework for operations within the U.S., and Robinhood has publicly supported this regulatory direction, but in offshore financial centers like Jersey, how to handle extraterritorial applicability, information disclosure, and transparent identification is currently lacking clear cases and Robinhood’s own systematic explanation. By throwing the question of “whether offshore follows the same principles” to the public and regulators, Aron is reminding the SEC: if institutional gaps are allowed to exist, “compliance domestically, exceptions offshore” can easily be interpreted as a regulatory arbitrage model. Next, whether the SEC will extend its new regulatory pressure to offshore tokenized products highly related to U.S. stocks through enforcement actions, guidance, or targeted inquiries will directly affect whether platforms like Robinhood are forced to unify global standards; meanwhile, in the absence of detailed disclosures by Robinhood regarding its Jersey operations, platforms, project parties, and investors engaging in stock tokenization can only protect themselves through contracts and disclosure clauses while closely monitoring when the U.S. regulatory stance on offshore business will materialize.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
