𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽 💰 $1,678 billion 𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 💎 ₿20.087 million (95.65% of max) 𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 💸 +0.82% 𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 ⛏️ +₿450 ($37.6 million) #SoundMoneyMonday

𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽 💰 $1,559 billion 𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 💎 ₿20.084 million (95.64% of max) 𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 💸 +0.82% 𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 ⛏️ +₿450 ($34.9 million) #SoundMoneyMonday

This theory that these tokenized shares are "creating" shares of the underlying stock is akin to claiming ETFs "create" shares of the underlying stock. It's a really weak argument, in my view.

𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽 💰 $1,600 billion 𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 💎 ₿20.081 million (95.62% of max) 𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 💸 +0.82% 𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 ⛏️ +₿450 ($35.8 million) #SoundMoneyMonday

The discussions about tokenized equities stemming from the debate between @CEOAdam, @vladtenev, and @dangallagher is electric. I've studied tokenized equity structures for half a decade now, the good, the bad, the ugly. Here are my thoughts: (1) The world is bigger than just the US. Yes, the US is the most important and the largest financial market in the world. The tokenized equities issued by entities like @RobinhoodCrypto and @xStocksFi are not US securities, they're not offered to US persons, and no one is advertising them as US securities. The tokens are registered under a European prospectus. They are structured in reference to the Swiss DLT Act, which is more than half a decade old and recognizes securities in token format. Criticizing offshore securities for existing offshore and targeting offshore investors is silly. (2) Unsponsored securities are everywhere. The original $MEME ETF issued by Roundhill ***in the US*** held $AMC. In general, ETFs act as unsponsored proxies for their underlying securities. ETFs do not require, nor is it practical that they would, issuer "approval" to buy and hold publicly traded shares. If an issuer doesn't like it, then perhaps they should consider delisting and managing their cap table as a private company. That's always a choice. Instead, we see the opposite: issuers actively court ETF inclusion because it's relevant to the growth in their investor base. To suggest that a security is illegitimate because it exists without the issuer's approval is a weak argument. (3) Voting rights are important, but do not in of itself define whether a security is "legitimate." Easy counterfactual: all of the tech companies with super voting shares where your vote as a common equity holder is substantively meaningless. Or how about ADRs listed in US markets that own interests in VIEs where it's not even clear you have economic rights, let alone voting rights. The goal of this post isn't to strike up a least dirty shirt contest. It's meant to highlight that blanket assertions about the legitimacy of a security -- particularly one marketed outside of the US -- are vacuous, because you can find plenty of examples of the same criticisms in the US market, too. And no one bats an eye. At the end of it all, what matters is that an issuer is meeting the obligations under their prospectus and that investors are able to become well informed of the objectives and the risks of that particular security. These 1:1 backed tokenized securities that I've referenced above, on balance, are delivering on that.

These tokenized securities are issued under a prospectus outside of the US. They’re not fake. The difference is Switzerland created laws governing the issuance of tokenized securities over half a decade ago.

There are entire rules around reporting requirements and filing conditions written for people who have the intention to influence management teams. Even if you found a broker silly enough to go along, posting something like this is just inviting a knock on the door. 😃

𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗽 💰 $1,565 billion 𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 💎 ₿20.078 million (95.61% of max) 𝗔𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 💸 +0.82% 𝗕𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 ⛏️ +₿450 ($35.1 million) #SoundMoneyMonday