Skip to content 
Robinhood’s recent move to offer tokenised shares of OpenAI has drawn sharp criticism from the AI giant. Whereas Robinhood started attracting investors with the help of its publicity campaign that led to a rise in its stock value, OpenAI promptly rejected the sale. The AI firm emphasised that the offering was not authorised or supported by them and urged users not to assume that the tokens symbolised actual equity. This dispute raises questions about the use of special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in digital asset trading and investor protections in emerging financial instruments.
Robinhood Launches Tokenised Stock Campaign in Europe
Robinhood announced that it would begin offering tokenized shares of OpenAI and SpaceX to users in the European Union. As part of the promotion, new users who onboard to trade these tokens by July 7 will receive €5 worth of OpenAI and SpaceX tokens. The platform plans to distribute up to $1 million worth of OpenAI tokens and $500,000 worth of SpaceX tokens.
The announcement had an immediate impact on Robinhood’s performance in the public markets. The company’s shares surged nearly 13%, reaching a new all-time high. This marked a major milestone for Robinhood’s expansion strategy in digital finance, as it continues to bridge traditional equity and crypto-based assets.
OpenAI Issues Public Denial
Despite Robinhood’s success with the rollout, OpenAI publicly rejected any connection to the offering. In a direct statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), OpenAI wrote, “These ‘OpenAI tokens’ are not OpenAI equity. We did not partner with Robinhood, were not involved in this, and do not endorse it. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval—we did not approve any transfer. Please be careful.”
The message from OpenAI was clear. It sought to inform potential buyers that the tokens being offered do not represent shares in the company. The AI firm further stressed that any equity transactions involving its stock must go through formal approval channels. This suggests Robinhood’s offer bypassed standard procedures for ownership transfer.
Robinhood Clarifies Its Position
Following OpenAI’s public statement, Robinhood responded through a spokesperson. Rouky Diallo, speaking to TechCrunch, said the token giveaway is based on indirect exposure to OpenAI. According to Diallo, users are not purchasing OpenAI stock itself but rather investing in a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that holds OpenAI shares.
An SPV is a separate legal entity often used by firms to manage risk or hold certain assets. In this case, Robinhood appears to own a portion of an SPV with OpenAI equity, and the tokens offered represent a derivative of that ownership, not actual shares.
“Through Robinhood’s ownership stake in a special purpose vehicle, users can get exposure to companies like OpenAI,” Diallo explained. This setup avoids direct equity transfers, which may explain why OpenAI was not involved in the transaction.
Tokenized Contracts, Not Stocks
Further clarification was found in Robinhood’s help center. The company outlined that users are not buying traditional stocks. Instead, they are acquiring tokenised contracts that mirror the price of those stocks and are recorded on a blockchain. While users can buy, sell, or hold the tokens, they cannot transfer them outside of Robinhood’s ecosystem at this time.
Robinhood emphasized that the tokens are price-tracking contracts, not legally binding shares. This structure resembles synthetic assets used in decentralized finance, where ownership is based on performance rather than actual equity control. That distinction appears to be at the heart of the conflict with OpenAI.
Investor Caution and Regulatory Gray Areas
The misunderstandings about the tokens highlight the increasingly complicated nature of the hybrid financial instruments. There can be misconceptions as to the ownership rights of tokenized stocks, particularly those which are associated with SPVs. When an investor purchases a derivative that opens the door to entry into a high-profile company such as OpenAI, there is the belief of direct access rather than a derivative product (with several layers).
The case is also questionable in regulation. Believing that the tokens are one thing when they are another, the users may be deceiving about the value and safegu streams relating to their investment. It was already flagged by legal experts that unauthorized tokenized security could unwittingly enter a grey area of legality, particularly in the countries where detailed regulation on digital assets has been low.
The strong position adopted by OpenAI emphasizes the business interest of the company to be able to manage its share allocation as well as its corporate integrity. It is also trying to avoid any misunderstanding of misrepresentation by not relating itself to the promotion of Robinhood. The message by the company cautions the users that any such offering is to be communicated clearly by the company.
In the case of an investor, the incident is a lesson that they should read between the lines and take note of what the financial instruments hold. Tokens of assets can have some innovative potential, and, at the same time it is worth examining the layers of complexity associated with them.
Ethical and regulatory concerns of tokenized equity will probably rise as Robinhood further diversifies its products in Europe. It is yet to be seen whether this model becomes the standard practice or elicits the introduction of new oversight. In the meantime, the schism between Robinhood and OpenAI is a canary in a coalmine of crypto-finance convergence.
Comments 1