What the tokenized stocks row is about. A tokenized stock should be exactly that: the stock, tokenized. Most of what trades under that name today is something else. Nothing happens to the underlying share. It gets bought and parked. What gets created is a brand new security: a debt note from an offshore vehicle, minted continuously, wearing a listed company's name and ticker, without that company's involvement. The collateral is real. The engineering is often genuinely good. That is not the problem. The problem is everything after that. In the real market, regulation follows a share for its whole life. Authorised venues with circuit breakers and surveillance dictated by regs. A depository with settlement finality. Regulated custody. Owners who can be identified. Trades reported, behaviour surveilled. The tokenized version inherits none of it automatically. It trades around the clock on platforms that are exchanges in everything except authorisation. It settles into nothing. And it often circulates as a bearer instrument: whoever holds the wallet holds the claim. Anonymously. Forever. We didn't forget to regulate bearer securities. We got rid of them on purpose. The US drove out bearer bonds from 1982. The UK abolished bearer shares in 2015. The whole world agreed that untraceable ownership of securities is a laundering and market abuse machine. These products reinvented it, called it composability, and in fairness were wrestling with a real conundrum: how do you get securities legitimately trading 24/7? Last weekend showed what that means in practice. Real market closed. Thin token float cornered by memecoin pools. Tokens wearing the HIMS ticker printed 132 dollars against a 28.84 close, while the group behind it openly announced it was trying to squeeze the listed stock through its wrapper. A token wearing AMC's ticker reportedly touched 166 against a 2.59 close the same weekend. On any regulated venue that is a manipulation case. Here there was no venue, no surveillance duty, and nobody to report it to. Not because the rules are unclear but because every rule we have is written as a duty of intermediaries, and these instruments were built to have none. All of it hangs on one unanswered question: are these platforms trading venues? Functionally, obviously yes. The day one major regulator says so, venue rules, depository recording, settlement finality, reporting and surveillance all arrive at once. The entire model is one supervisory decision away from the rulebook it was built to avoid. Unenforced is not the same as lawful. None of this is an argument against tokenization. I have spent nearly nine years building the compliant version (along with many others doing the hard path), so I want this technology to win more than almost anyone. The lawful routes already exist: authorised venues, digital depositories, sandboxes built for exactly this. Transfer-restricted tokens are live in production today, including on-chain shares carrying full rights that move only between approved wallets. Zero knowledge proofs and KYC reliance networks could make this even smoother. Permissionless bearer form is a choice, not a necessity. So here is where this goes. These instruments are not on regulated venues today. They will be and those admitting them will need to be regulated. Then they will sit in depositories built for tokens. Then the wrappers become the depositary receipts of the token era. And eventually the best of them stop being wrappers at all: the security itself, on chain, with full rights. The companies whose tickers are being used have every right to be angry. The fix is infrastructure.