Dear Commissioners: In advising high-net-worth individuals, I often see that confidence depends not only on an investment’s potential, but also on whether its structure and sponsorship are understandable. Tokenized stocks may bring new possibilities to the market, but if investors cannot tell whether an issuer was notified, had a meaningful chance to object, or is involved at all, uncertainty about the process can become uncertainty about the product itself. The opt-out model makes those distinctions especially important. A 30-day window is only useful if the issuer receives notice through a dependable channel, can understand what is being proposed, and can make its objection effective. Investors and their advisors also need a way to establish what happened. If the record is unclear, two people could reasonably reach different conclusions about whether a tokenized offering proceeded after proper notice or despite an issuer’s objection. I encourage the Commission to make the process easy to verify, not just easy to describe. A public, searchable record could identify the proposed token and platform, document when and how notice was delivered, show whether an issuer responded, and indicate the status of any objection. Investor communications should plainly distinguish an issuer’s own tokenization from a third-party product, rather than leaving customers to infer a relationship from a company name or ticker. These steps would give investors and their advisors a firmer basis for evaluating what a token represents. Clear records and straightforward disclosures can reduce avoidable questions and help preserve trust as new forms of trading develop. I urge the Commission to address these practical issues in its guidance on the exemption. Sincerely, T. J. Herlihy, CPFA, CEPA, Financial Advisor, Bangor, Maine