Menu

SEC

Nvidia board authorizes additional $150 billion share repurchase

Nvidia board authorizes additional $150 billion share repurchase

, ,

Nvidia’s board of directors authorized a $150 billion increase to the company’s share repurchase program, bringing the total remaining amount authorized to $235 billion. The company said it expects to execute the full remaining program through fiscal year 2028.

  • Board approved an additional $150 billion under the existing repurchase program.
  • Total remaining authorization now stands at $235 billion, per the release.
  • Watch for the pace of actual buybacks disclosed in coming quarterly filings.
  • $150B new authorization added to the buyback program
  • $235B total remaining authorization after the increase
  • $85B implied prior remaining balance before the increase
  • FY2028 target window for executing the remaining program

Nvidia’s board of directors authorized an additional $150 billion under the company’s existing share repurchase program, according to the release issued Monday, September 28, 2026. The increase brings the total remaining amount authorized to $235 billion. Nvidia said it “expects to execute the total remaining program through fiscal year 2028.”

What the $235 billion figure implies

The release does not state the size of the remaining authorization before Monday’s action, but the arithmetic in the document’s own numbers is straightforward: $235 billion minus the $150 billion increase leaves roughly $85 billion in unused authorization heading into the announcement. Nvidia frames the new addition as “the largest share repurchase authorization increase in history,” a characterization the company applies to itself rather than one BlockWest can verify against a database of corporate buyback history.

The release does not disclose Nvidia’s current cash and marketable securities balance, nor does it say how much of the prior authorization had already been spent in the current fiscal year. Investors will get that detail in Nvidia’s next quarterly filing with the SEC rather than in this release.

Huang ties the buyback to AI capital spending

CEO Jensen Huang linked the repurchase decision to the company’s investment posture rather than treating it as a standalone capital-return move.

“Our cash generation gives us the capacity to invest in the technologies that advance this transformation and return capital to shareholders.”

Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA, in the release

The release pairs that statement with boilerplate forward-looking-statement language citing the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, standard disclaimer text tied to any statement about execution timelines or growth expectations. It does not specify a repurchase price ceiling, a per-quarter target, or whether the company intends to pursue open-market purchases, accelerated repurchases, or both.

The BlockWest read. A $150 billion top-up that pushes total authorization to $235 billion signals Nvidia’s board expects free cash flow to keep outrunning its AI infrastructure spending commitments through fiscal 2028. For allocators, the size of the number matters less than the multiyear execution window: a buyback spread over roughly two fiscal years is a floor under float reduction, not a near-term catalyst. The open question is how much of this gets executed before AI capex commitments compete for the same cash.

Nvidia’s next quarterly report, filed with the SEC on Form 10-Q, should show the pace of repurchases executed under the enlarged authorization and provide the cash-balance context this release omits.

SEC staff clarify when token buybacks and network upgrades raise securities concerns

SEC staff clarify when token buybacks and network upgrades raise securities concerns

, , , , , ,

The Securities and Exchange Commission has told crypto issuers that not every token buyback or network upgrade will trigger a fresh securities-law analysis, but the details of how a project describes its own actions can still tip the scale. The guidance, issued as staff FAQs rather than a formal rule, gives token issuers a more granular map of which promises and disclosures the agency is watching.

  • SEC staff in the Division of Corporation Finance published the FAQs on Friday (September 25)
  • The document covers at least four areas: token buybacks, network development, staking receipt tokens and trading platforms
  • The SEC states the FAQs are staff views only, carry no legal force and do not amend federal securities law
  • Sept 25 date SEC staff released the new crypto FAQ guidance
  • 4 areas of token activity addressed across the FAQ document

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published a new set of frequently asked questions addressing how existing securities law applies to routine crypto-market activity, according to NewsBTC reported. The FAQs, dated Friday (September 25), walk through token buybacks, ongoing network development, staking receipt tokens and the role secondary trading venues play in an investment-contract analysis. Staff stress the document changes no existing rule; it only clarifies how the agency’s own staff currently reads the law.

Buybacks only matter when tied to a yield promise

The FAQs make clear that a project repurchasing its own tokens does not automatically convert the asset into a security. What matters, staff wrote, is how the issuer frames the buyback. If a project presents the repurchase as a mechanism for generating yield, boosting returns, or delivering other economic benefits through its own continued managerial effort, that framing becomes relevant to the investment-contract test.

In other words, the buyback itself is not the trigger. The issuer’s marketing language around it is.

The guidance extends the same logic to claims about network maturity. Whether a blockchain has become sufficiently functional or decentralized depends, according to the FAQs, on how the issuer itself has described its development milestones rather than on any industry-wide benchmark. That puts pressure on project teams to be precise about what work they say remains outstanding, since their own past statements can become evidence in a later analysis.

Trading platforms need more than a listing to be called a promoter

Secondary markets get their own treatment in the document. SEC staff state that a trading platform does not become a promoter simply by offering a market for a crypto asset. To meet that label, a platform would need to satisfy the existing legal definition of a promoter under securities rules, a higher bar than merely facilitating trades.

The FAQs also cover staking receipt tokens. A receipt that only evidences ownership of an underlying digital commodity does not necessarily create a separate economic entitlement of its own, staff wrote.

That distinction matters for platforms offering liquid staking products, where users receive a derivative token representing staked assets. If regulators treat the receipt as nothing more than a claim on the underlying commodity, it avoids being analyzed as a distinct security in its own right, though the FAQs stop short of blanket immunity for every structure.

Staff guidance carries no vote from the full Commission

The SEC is explicit about the limits of what it just published. The FAQs represent staff views, have not been approved or disapproved by the full Commission, carry no legal force, and do not amend federal securities law. Issuers cannot cite them as binding precedent in a future enforcement action or court case.

Even so, practical clarity has been scarce for crypto projects trying to determine which activities alter a token’s regulatory status. The FAQs give issuers a more specific set of lines to work within, even without the force of a rule.

The BlockWest read. The real audience here is compliance counsel at token issuers and market-makers running buyback programs, not just traders. Framing now matters as much as substance: a project that markets its buyback as “yield” invites scrutiny it could avoid by staying silent on the mechanics. Expect legal teams to start scrubbing whitepapers and investor decks for exactly the kind of managerial-effort language the FAQs flag, well before the Commission ever votes on a formal rule.

The SEC has given no timeline for turning the staff FAQs into a Commission-approved rule, leaving issuers to operate under guidance that could be revised or withdrawn without a formal rulemaking process. Whether crypto projects adjust their buyback disclosures and staking-token language in response, or wait for enforcement actions to test the FAQs’ boundaries, is the next thing to watch.

SEC staff classify staking receipt tokens as digital tools, not securities

SEC staff classify staking receipt tokens as digital tools, not securities

, , , , , , ,

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has told staff that tokens issued for staking ether are not securities, provided they function only as receipts for the underlying coin. The guidance arrives three years after the same agency fined Kraken $30 million over its US staking program, marking a sharp reversal in enforcement posture toward an activity that once drew lawsuits.

  • SEC staff published the FAQ guidance on Friday, September 25, 2026, covering staking receipt tokens and buybacks.
  • Kraken paid $30 million in February 2023 and shut its US staking service after advertising returns as high as 21%.
  • The Senate failed to pass the Clarity Act this month, leaving crypto oversight without a statutory split between the SEC and CFTC.
  • $30M Kraken’s 2023 settlement, the benchmark SEC staking case
  • 21% annual return Kraken advertised, cited in SEC’s original complaint
  • 16 digital commodities named in the March 17 interpretive release, including ETH
  • $2,685 ether’s price near the time of the guidance, per BeInCrypto

The BeInCrypto reported that the Division of Corporation Finance issued the FAQs on crypto assets on Friday, addressing how liquid staking tokens should be treated under federal securities law. Staking lets holders lock up coins to help secure a blockchain in exchange for rewards, and liquid staking services issue a tradable token as a receipt for the locked coins. The FAQs classify that receipt as a “digital tool” rather than a security, so long as the coin behind it is itself a digital commodity.

Staking receipt tokens win digital tool status under new SEC staff FAQs

The guidance leans on the March 17 interpretive release in which the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission jointly named 16 digital commodities. Ether, trading near $2,685 at the time, was among them. Because ETH already sits outside securities classification under that release, a token that merely evidences a deposit of staked ETH inherits the same treatment.

The FAQ document is explicit about what counts as a mere receipt. The token cannot alter the rights tied to the staked ETH, cannot add extra rewards, and the provider cannot lend, pledge or otherwise reuse the deposited coins.

Staff also addressed a separate scenario: liquid staking providers whose tokens derive value from the “programmatic operation of a crypto system,” rather than simply evidencing a deposit. Those tokens can instead be classified as digital commodities in their own right, the FAQ notes, a distinction that leaves room for disagreement over which category a given liquid staking product falls into.

Kraken’s 21% return pitch drew the $30 million penalty SEC now contrasts with receipts

The staff position stands in direct contrast to the SEC’s 2023 case against Kraken. The SEC’s February 2023 press release detailed how Kraken advertised annual returns as high as 21% through its staking-as-a-service program, conduct the agency said turned the offering into an unregistered securities sale. Kraken paid $30 million and ended its US retail staking service to settle the charges.

Whether it’s through staking-as-a-service, lending, or other means, crypto intermediaries, when offering investment contracts in exchange for investors’ tokens, need to provide the proper disclosures and safeguards required by our securities laws.

Gary Gensler, then SEC chair

Four months later the agency sued Coinbase, calling its staking program an unregistered securities offering. The SEC dropped the Coinbase suit in February 2025. Staff statements in May and August 2025 then concluded that protocol staking and liquid staking generally do not involve securities offerings, setting up Friday’s FAQ as the most detailed articulation of that shift.

Crenshaw’s dissent and the Clarity Act’s Senate failure leave the guidance unsettled

Not every commissioner endorses the new framework. Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw wrote a response titled “Caveat Liquid Staker” arguing the August 2025 statement rested on assumptions that may not match how real staking programs operate. The FAQs themselves carry no binding weight, stating plainly that they represent staff views the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved.

That caveat matters more now. The Clarity Act, a bill meant to divide crypto oversight between the SEC and CFTC by statute, failed in the Senate this month.

BeInCrypto reported in March that analysts believed regulators had already delivered most of what the bill promised through guidance and settlements rather than legislation. The gap those analysts flagged remains: staff guidance, unlike a law, can be withdrawn by a future SEC leadership without a congressional vote.

The BlockWest read. For liquid staking providers and the exchanges that list their tokens, the FAQ is a compliance green light rather than a legal shield. Any provider tempted to advertise fixed yields, the way Kraken did, risks re-triggering the same Howey analysis the SEC applied in 2023. Institutional allocators eyeing staked-ETH products should treat this as staff comfort, not statutory protection, until Congress or a future Commission vote locks it in.

The open question the FAQ does not resolve is which liquid staking tokens count as pure receipts versus digital commodities in their own right, a distinction staff left to facts and circumstances rather than a bright line. With the Clarity Act stalled in the Senate, that determination will keep falling to Division of Corporation Finance staff on a case by case basis until lawmakers revisit the bill or a new Commission majority reconsiders the FAQs altogether.

Securitize stock rises 15% as SEC exempts tokenized equity venues from exchange registration

Securitize stock rises 15% as SEC exempts tokenized equity venues from exchange registration

, , , , , , ,

Securitize’s stock jumped 15% on Friday, right as the SEC cleared a legal path for tokenized equities to trade without full exchange registration. For BlockWest readers, the move is an early test of whether regulatory permission alone can turn years of tokenization pitch decks into a liquid, tradable market.

  • SECZ shares rose more than 15% Friday to trade at $16.53, up 77% over the prior five trading sessions.
  • The SEC’s Innovation Exemption, issued September 17, lets tokenized securities venues skip exchange registration for five years.
  • Securitize tokenized $295 million of its own shares on Solana and Avalanche in July, the largest issuer-sponsored tokenized stock launch on record.
  • $16.53 Securitize’s Friday share price on the NYSE
  • 77% five-day share gain versus a 158% one-month gain
  • 158% one-month gain against roughly 50% year-to-date return
  • $295M value of SECZ shares tokenized on Solana and Avalanche in July

Securitize, the blockchain infrastructure firm that serves as transfer agent for BlackRock’s tokenized BUIDL money market fund, saw its stock surge more than 15% on Friday, according to reporting by BeInCrypto. Shares traded at $16.53, extending a run that has lifted the stock 77% over five trading days and 158% over the past month, based on data from TradingView.

The rally coincided with the SEC opening a new legal channel for trading tokenized equities. It converts a long-discussed real-world asset narrative into an active trading opportunity for a specific set of platforms.

SEC’s five-year Innovation Exemption lets venues skip exchange registration

On September 17, the SEC issued a five-year Innovation Exemption that allows tokenized securities venues to operate without registering as a national exchange, according to a report by UPI. The order also frees certain liquidity providers from dealer registration requirements when they supply tokenized stock to automated market maker pools.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins described the exemption as a temporary bridge rather than a permanent framework.

in a permissioned environment today while the commission considers the need for additional action to facilitate onchain trading

Paul Atkins, SEC chair

The order builds on a January statement in which the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission classified tokenized securities, concluding that tokenization changes a security’s form but not its legal status, a distinction detailed in guidance from Norton Rose Fulbright.

Securitize’s $295 million share tokenization set an issuer record in July

Securitize went public on the NYSE in July through a merger with Cantor Equity Partners II. The same day, it tokenized $295 million of its own SECZ shares on the Solana and Avalanche blockchains, the largest issuer-sponsored tokenized stock launch on record.

The stock’s longer-term returns tell a different story than its recent spike. Its six-month, year-to-date, and one-year returns all sit near 50 percent, while the one-month gain alone is 158 percent.

That gap means most of the year’s advance has come in the past several weeks, concentrated around the SEC’s exemption announcement rather than spread evenly across the year.

Whether trading demand follows regulatory clarity is still unresolved

Regulatory clarity removes one obstacle for tokenization platforms, but it does not by itself create investor demand. Securitize is still working toward consistent profitability, a factor the exemption does not directly address.

Atkins himself framed the current rules as provisional, saying the commission is weighing further action on onchain trading. That leaves open whether the five-year exemption becomes a permanent structure or a stopgap replaced by fuller rulemaking.

The BlockWest read. The more durable story here is not Securitize’s share price but the precedent for issuers acting as their own transfer agent and liquidity venue at once. If that model survives the exemption’s five-year window, other asset managers with tokenized funds, not just BlackRock’s BUIDL, will have a template for listing equity onchain without waiting on a full exchange license.

The open question is what Atkins meant by “additional action to facilitate onchain trading,” and whether the SEC moves toward permanent rules before the Innovation Exemption’s five-year term runs out. Until then, Securitize’s ability to convert its NYSE listing and tokenized share structure into sustained profitability will be the test investors watch next.

Strategy Inc board approves daily dividend record date proposal for preferred stock

Strategy asks shareholders to approve daily preferred stock dividends

, , ,

Strategy’s board has approved moving all four of its perpetual preferred stocks to daily dividends, and it now needs common stockholders to sign off at a virtual special meeting on October 28, 2026. The proposal, first reported by Cointelegraph and disclosed in an 8-K filing, covers STRC, STRF, STRK and STRD.

If approved, every calendar day, including weekends and holidays, becomes a dividend record date, with any declared dividend paid on the next business day. The filing says the amendments do not change “the total amount of regular dividends, dividend rates, or overall dividend payment obligations.” The same cash goes out, just in many more pieces.

  • Stockholders of record on September 25 vote on October 28. Preferred holders do not vote
  • STRC switches first, with the first daily payment on November 2, 2026, for the November 1 record date
  • STRF, STRK and STRD follow, with the first daily payment on January 4, 2027, covering the January 1 to 3 record dates
  • 12% current variable annual rate on STRC
  • 10% / 8% / 10% fixed rates on STRF, STRK and STRD, all unchanged
  • 846,000 BTC held by Strategy, the largest corporate treasury
  • Oct 28 special meeting date

Why Strategy wants daily payouts

Management gave three reasons: supporting price stability and liquidity, cutting the lag before investors can reinvest their income, and making the preferreds more competitive so Strategy can keep raising capital with them. Executive Chairman Michael Saylor summed it up as supporting “price stability, liquidity, and demand” with “economics unchanged,” per Bitcoin Magazine.

The price-stability point is the important one. Under a monthly or quarterly schedule, a preferred’s price tends to build up accrued value and then drop on the ex-dividend date, and traders can time their entries and exits around that date. When income arrives every day, the drop nearly disappears and the security should trade closer to its stated value. For STRC, whose variable rate Strategy adjusts to keep it trading near its $100 stated amount, that matters.

STRC’s rough summer

STRC has already been through two changes to how often it pays. It started on a monthly schedule and moved to semi-monthly in June, The Block reports. That same month it fell as low as $71.25.

CEO Phong Le blamed the fall on leverage the company had not expected. Investors borrowed against bitcoin at lower rates to earn STRC’s higher dividend, and the trade came apart. “We did not expect the amount of leverage that came into the system,” Le said. Strategy then approved a $1 billion repurchase program and doubled it to $2 billion in September. STRC closed at $98.31 on September 25, back near its stated value.

Strive got there first

Strategy would not be the first to do this. In June 2026, Strive became the first public company to pay daily dividends, on its SATA preferred, which carries a 13% annual rate and pays every business day. Strive holds 26,355 BTC. Strategy has four series and a far larger investor base. If stockholders approve, daily income moves from one company’s experiment toward a standard for the category Strategy calls digital credit.

Where the money comes from

The daily schedule does not change how the dividends are paid for. Strategy covers them with stock issuance, a dollar reserve and, if needed, bitcoin. It has outlined a program that could sell bitcoin to raise up to $1.25 billion for dollar reserves, preferred dividends and buybacks, and it resumed buying in mid-September, adding 950 BTC for $75.7 million. MSTR common is down roughly 50% over the past year, so how well the preferreds perform now affects how cheaply Strategy can raise money.

The BlockWest read. Daily dividends are a plumbing change, but plumbing is what institutional buyers look at. Removing the ex-dividend drop makes STRC look more like a cash-management product and less like a trading vehicle, which helps Strategy compete for yield money against money market funds and short-duration credit. The risk underneath does not change. Paying out income more often does nothing to fund the dividends, and June showed how fast leveraged buyers can pull out.

Watch the October 28 vote, whether STRC holds near $100 once daily payments start on November 2, whether issuance of the fixed-rate series picks up ahead of the January switch, and whether other bitcoin treasury companies with preferreds follow Strive and Strategy.

Robinhood’s Vlad Tenev Responds to AMC Critics Over Stock Token Plans

Robinhood’s Vlad Tenev Responds to AMC Critics Over Stock Token Plans

, , , , , , ,

Robinhood’s tokenized stock products have triggered a high-profile clash with AMC Entertainment over whether brokerages can issue blockchain-wrapped securities without issuer consent. The dispute tests whether current securities regulations permit such products and could force the SEC to clarify its enforcement boundaries.

  • Robinhood extended tokenized stock offerings to AMC and over 190 other companies without those firms’ direct involvement or approval.
  • AMC CEO Adam Aron called the practice “contemptible, outrageous, disgusting, detestable, inexcusable, vile” and threatened SEC action and outside counsel.
  • Robinhood describes its tokens as debt securities backed one-to-one by collateral shares, granting economic exposure but no voting rights.
  • 190+ Public companies covered by Robinhood’s tokenized stock offering alongside AMC Entertainment
  • 15% Jump in AMC premarket stock price when the public dispute first surfaced

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev publicly defended his company’s tokenized stock products this week, marking his first televised response to AMC Entertainment chief Adam Aron’s fierce objections. Aron has accused Robinhood of issuing unregistered securities tied to AMC stock in violation of federal law, signaling he will pursue legal action and file complaints with the SEC. The clash underscores an unresolved tension in securities regulation: whether a brokerage can wrap any public company’s shares into a tradable blockchain token without that company’s permission or knowledge.

Robinhood Extends Token Coverage to AMC and 190+ Other Companies Without Issuer Consent

Robinhood extended its tokenized stock offering through Robinhood Assets Limited to cover AMC and more than 190 other publicly traded companies, none of which had explicitly agreed to the arrangement. The move allowed the platform to create blockchain-based instruments tied directly to those companies’ shares, creating new trading exposure without any formal relationship between the brokerage and the issuers themselves.

The tokenization trend reflects the broader wave of adoption of blockchain technology across traditional financial infrastructure. Major financial institutions and retail platforms have increasingly explored how distributed ledger technology might streamline settlement, reduce intermediaries, and create new market structures. Robinhood’s approach represents one of the most aggressive implementations of this vision in retail investing.

Aron reacted with forceful criticism, arguing that the tokens fundamentally undermined the proper relationship between a company and its shareholders. He posted on X that the products let Robinhood create exposure to AMC stock with no involvement from the company and no way for AMC to control how its equity was being represented or traded.

I find this practice to be contemptible, outrageous, disgusting, detestable, inexcusable, vile. How can it possibly be legal? We have no connection to this at all, and do not condone it in any way.

Adam Aron, Chief Executive Officer, AMC Entertainment

AMC’s stock surged as much as 15% in premarket trading when the dispute became public, with investors actively trading both the underlying shares and the related token products.

Tenev Argues Companies Cannot Control Every Financial Product Based on Their Stock

On Wednesday, Tenev told CNBC that once a company’s shares begin trading publicly, the issuer cannot dictate every derivative or structured product built atop those securities. He characterized Robinhood’s offerings as debt securities, each backed one-to-one by the underlying shares held in reserve as collateral.

Token holders receive economic exposure to the stock’s price movements but retain no voting rights or ownership stakes in the companies themselves. This structure, Robinhood argues, places the tokens outside the regulatory framework governing direct equity ownership and voting instruments.

Robinhood’s chief legal officer, Dan Gallagher, a former SEC commissioner, also defended the company’s legal interpretation. Gallagher stated publicly that Robinhood understands securities law well and invited AMC to send its lawyers to discuss the matter. His background at the SEC lends weight to the company’s argument that it has vetted the legal foundations of its product offerings.

The Broader Debate Over Financial Innovation and Issuer Rights

Robinhood’s strategy echoes broader tensions in modern finance between financial innovation and traditional corporate governance. Companies have long objected to certain derivative products or structured instruments based on their shares, yet securities law has generally permitted such innovation once shares trade publicly. Tokenization introduces a new dimension to this old conflict.

Public companies increasingly worry about control over how their equity is represented in digital markets. Some have raised concerns that tokenized versions of their shares could complicate cap table management, create confusion among investors, or dilute the official record of shareholding. Others fear that unregistered token products could expose them to regulatory scrutiny if the SEC later challenges the products’ legality.

SEC May Be Forced to Rule on Whether Brokerages Need Issuer Consent for Token Products

The dispute between Robinhood and AMC raises a genuinely unresolved question for U.S. regulators: whether a brokerage can tokenize any public company’s stock without that company’s approval or knowledge. Current securities law does not explicitly address this scenario, leaving both the legality and the enforceability of such products uncertain.

The SEC has been cautious about rushing to regulate crypto and blockchain-based financial products, preferring to issue guidance gradually while monitoring market developments. However, a formal complaint from AMC or similar actions by other major corporations could force the agency to provide clearer rules about token issuance, custody arrangements, and whether issuer consent is legally required.

AMC has threatened to file a complaint with the SEC and bring in outside legal counsel, signaling that this clash could become the first formal regulatory test of where the line sits between a brokerage’s freedom to create new financial products and an issuer’s ability to protect and control how its equity is represented in the market.

Back To Top
© BlockWest 2026
BlockWest Media LLC

Equities, AI, and blue-chip crypto, covered as one connected market.

Sections

Company

Legal

Follow

𝕏 ▶ in

© 2026 BlockWest. All rights reserved.