SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce Responds to Tokenized Stocks Uproar
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce weighs in on the tokenized stocks discussion
By: Zack Guzman
September 14, 2026
Wall Street has a new fight on its hands: what exactly counts as owning a stock once that stock moves onchain?
That question erupted into public view as AMC CEO Adam Aron and Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev sparred over tokenized stocks, with critics questioning whether digital representations of public shares can really offer investors the same thing as owning the underlying equity.
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce is not taking sides in that particular fight. But she does think the market needs room to find out.
Asked by Coinage about the backlash surrounding tokenized stocks, Peirce declined to weigh in directly on the AMC-Robinhood dispute. Instead, she pointed to a broader reality: Wall Street is already coming to the SEC asking how to tokenize traditional securities.
“As soon as the Commission announced that it was taking a more positive approach to crypto, we started to get incoming inquiries about tokenizing traditional securities, specifically stock,” Peirce told Coinage.
That has forced regulators to confront questions that once sounded theoretical. How should tokenized stocks trade? Where should they trade? And perhaps most importantly: if you buy one, what do you actually own?
That last question sits at the center of the uproar.
A tokenized stock can mean very different things depending on how it is structured. One version could represent the actual underlying security. Another could simply give an investor exposure to a stock held in custody somewhere else. Depending on the product, investors may get dividends, voting rights, both — or neither.
“Tokenization is enchanting, but it’s not magical,” Peirce said. “If you tokenize the security, it’s still a security.”
For Peirce, the key is not forcing every tokenized stock into the same model. It is making sure investors understand exactly what they are buying.
“Are they getting the same rights?” she asked. “And are they getting the dividends and the voting rights that they would get if they were buying the non-tokenized version of the security? Or are they getting something different?”
Read More from Coinage:
That distinction matters because some investors may not care.
“A lot of people just want exposure to the stock,” Peirce said. “And they may not care about dividends or voting rights.”
That makes the fight over tokenized stocks much bigger than a disagreement between two CEOs.
It is a fight over whether a new generation of investors will define stock ownership the same way Wall Street always has.
For decades, owning a share has meant more than simply betting on whether a company’s stock price rises or falls. Shares can carry voting rights, dividends and a legal claim on the company. Tokenization potentially breaks those pieces apart.
An investor might want exposure to AMC’s stock price without caring about voting at the company’s annual meeting. Another investor might insist that anything marketed as a tokenized AMC share should carry all of the same rights as the stock itself.
Peirce’s answer is essentially to let both exist — as long as buyers know the difference.
“There will be a period of the two systems sort of co-existing,” Peirce said. “And as they start to integrate with one another, we’ll have to watch and see if any issues arise there.”
That is ultimately what the AMC-Robinhood clash may be previewing.
The fight is not simply over whether a stock can be represented by a token. It is over what investors should expect that token to represent.
Subscribe to the free Coinage newsletter to stay up-to-date on all things crypto and finance.
