I have to think a bit to organize why and advantages and disadvantages of this, so I thought I'd share.

I define "tokenizing shares" as using a distributed blockchain with universal ability to transact as a way to trade shares.

Advantages of tokenizing shares:

* Universal access to fractional trading, not just inside a single trading platform. (Most likely, anyway.)
* Near zero transaction costs outside the spread. There are trading platforms that offer $0 commissions for regular retail customers, but there's still regulatory fees and these could potentially be skipped. (NOTE: There is likely a larger spread on a distributed ledger than a regular exchange, due to slower transactions. See below.)
* Ability to trade 24h
* Access to purchasers that don't want to or cannot use traditional platforms (e.g, crypto fans, people in developing countries). This may be stopped by "Permissioned ledgers", where there contracts that stop the transfer of stocks into a wallet unless it's on a whitelist.
* Resistance to total failure (due to the distributed nature of the setup)

Changes with good and bad sides:

* Slower trades; expect max speed of milliseconds rather than 1us
* Thus, a loss of the ability to do HFT (High Frequency Trading), which means that we lose the information transmission and market making ability of HFTs, but we also lose their ability to do front-running and decrease their ability to cause flash crashes and similar
* Loss of ability to shut down the trading. This remove an abusable tool of power, but it also lose a tool used to stop bad situation (like flash crashes), which is used to deal with bad market situations (like flash crashes due to trading software bugs), to avoid insider trading when major news is about to hit, and to deal with regulatory concerns.
* All trades are final. In the regular market, trades can be reversed by the courts or banks if done quickly (clearing in the US is in one business day, in Europe it's mostly two business days); in an anonymous, immediate clearing system based on a final distributed ledger, trades can't be reversed. This removes some types of risk, but adds in risks of theft (as we've seen with cryptocurrency) and makes mistakes more difficult to reverse.

Disadvantage if both on a regular exchange and a blockchain:

* The slower trades on the blockchain will lead to latency arbitrage. To avoid losses from price sniping, the blockchain market has to have wider spreads. Market makers will also typically provide limited liquidity in the slower market, to minimize the amount of loss the times they do get sniped.

Disadvantages of stocks on a blockchain in general:

* The distributed nature of the blockchain will allow frontrunning: A retail investor place an order in a market, and a frontrunning company with faster routing setup will then buy the stock elsewhere at a lower price, and re-sell it to the investor at the higher price. If there are distributed validators for transaction order, frontrunners may instead use techniques to bribe the validators (e.g, they may run validators themselves, and have their purchase jump the queue). The net result of both is that instead of negative spread going as profit to the retail investors, it goes to the frontrunners.
* It provides larger liquidity pools for criminals and terrorist organizations to do money laundering; e.g. Russia may be able to move billions around outside sanctions (though there are protocols in place that try to stop this)

Disadvantages for this particular blockchain at this time, for the companies that are resistant to getting on it:

* It is cheap to say no now, and they can't say no later
* There is little time to evaluate
* There is likely some level of legal risk

That's a quick attempt to sort my thoughts - they're not strongly researched for this particular blockchain, though I did a couple of searches to fill in details that I wasn't certain about.

That's nowhere near true. The current system is administered by regulated entities that have a decent amount of information about most owners. Are there ways to play the system? Yes. But it's nowhere near the same level of anonymity and flexibility as making stocks into tokens that can be freely transferred to anonymous accounts.

> Also, it was pretty racist with the whole English thing.

The "whole English thing" is about having someone that it is possible to communicate with in English. I'm fairly sure they would be OK with speaking English through a translation system, as long as it didn't get in the way of the communication.

Also, as someone that is from a non-English-speaking country: Somebody that isn't able to operate in English is unlikely to be able to do good open source work. English is the language that is used to communicate about programming globally, and anybody that does not tap into that communication is at a very large disadvantage. The overall situation is unfortunate, and it can be argued that the situation is systemically racist - but it isn't individually racist to require the ability to operate in English. Fortunately, AI tools are continually making it easier to operate in languages you don't speak, so this disadvantage will become less and less of a problem.

I wonder if it's 50% larger or 12kb flat overhead.

The data from a single component 2 orders of magnitude smaller than typical isn't so useful.

Index fund companies are sort of though.

If vanguard causes trouble for the executive of an s and p 500 using their holdings in 401k accounts, how long before that company switches to principal to manage its 401k?

There's a lot of money in index funds.

There's also the model of build a reputation and then extract any value your name had.

I see that a lot too (especially with clothing and shoe companies).

Nearly 50% of stocks are held in retirement plans. It's not that the shareholders only care for the next dividend. It's that the shareholders are passive (as you also pointed out), or are one level removed (in index funds).

The fund managers don't want to rock the boat with the companies because the companies get to pick who manages their retirement accounts, so essentially the retirement accounts are yes votes and not ownership oversight.

The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world please nching above its weight in manufacturing. It manufactures about 1/8 of the stuff with 1/20 the global population.

It's behind china in raw numbers, but above per person (by about 50%).

Not jist execution for corporations, also "jail" time.

A corporation commits a crime, it doesn't get a slap on the wrist fine. It becomes a ward of the state for x amount of years (government assigns a board, no dividends for the shareholders, shares are locked and cannot be traded).

Which is worse in Norway?

Note: I don't worship Norway, but I do see it as a place where positive lessons could be learned and integrated.

Probably to watch a person fight the terminator and the predator.

People like spectacle.

WWE isn't for me, but it's incredibly popular, and I could see this becoming so too.

No. Opened on fewer than 1,000 sceens.

It's more that people want their money now and it takes time to verify. So there's a touch of arbitrage to be had being a market maker when people want to cash out 30 minutes early.

It's not fraud, it's taking advantage of gambling addiction.

Note. I didn't read the article, but it's known ther s time based arbitrage between an event and the official resolving of it.

I like xfce with the two panel layout a lot.

Reminds me of gnome 2 more than mint or cinnamon, and gnome 2 just felt right to me.

It seems possible to me that it could be the similarity of the current hardware to computers.

The PS3 and Xbox One were much less PC like than the current gen.