Hey there @dangallagher, in the past week you and @vladtenev CEO of Robinhood have made public comments defending your use of and “standing behind” your relatively new Stock Token concept. I think this practice is abhorrent. It defeats the very ethos of share ownership. Public financial markets were created so that companies could raise capital, and so that investors could share in the wealth created as a result. Not to turn investing instead merely into some gamified business-oriented casino. If by your own admission you can’t offer or sell Stock Tokens to “U.S. persons” why does your U.S. web site talk about them so much and so favorably? Vlad: How can a U.S. brokerage firm be proud of creating an offshore Channel Island operation in far off Jersey specifically with the intent to operate outside U.S. securities laws? Is there potential confusion that Stock Token purchasers are getting less than all the rights accorded to real shareholders, and if so do you care? If those tokens are theoretically backed 1:1 by real shares, but hypothetically some of those underlying real shares are in turn lent out to short sellers, are the Tokens really backed 1:1 in fact? Dan: I think U.S. securities laws have protected the public very well over the past century. You spent much of your career at the SEC. Deep down, in your heart of hearts, how can you really think a world without the precautions imposed by U.S. securities laws creates a better, safer environment for investors? Choose whatever descriptors you think best make sense under the circumstances: Non-regulated, derivative, synthetic, sham, debt-backed securities trying to simulate actual real stock, or pick your own words if these don’t fit. Stock Tokens may make you an innovator in your own eyes. In my eyes, they bring your firm dishonor.