Broadridge and Dinari have integrated proxy voting for eligible holders of Dinari’s dShares, giving token holders a route to exercise voting rights associated with the underlying U.S. equities. The arrangement connects an onchain distribution format to Broadridge’s established proxy infrastructure, and the companies say votes will enter the formal shareholder process and be counted alongside votes from traditional shareholders.
The announcement addresses one of tokenized equities’ central structural questions: does a token provide only economic exposure to a stock, or does the holder also receive relevant corporate rights? Dinari says each dShare corresponds to an underlying U.S. stock or ETF held through custody arrangements. The company distributes its tokenized securities in the United States and 92 jurisdictions, and says its custodial model passes through dividends and corporate actions. The voting integration extends that model to governance, while the underlying securities remain in conventional custody and proxy systems.Voting turns the token into a more complete investment product
For listed companies, proxy votes can determine board appointments, executive compensation, mergers and shareholder proposals. Investors who hold shares through brokers already rely on intermediaries to transmit voting materials and instructions. A tokenized product must solve the same chain of entitlement, communication and reconciliation, even if the investor proves control through a digital wallet. Broadridge’s role is to connect the token holder’s eligibility to the established process used for the underlying securities.
Doug DeSchutter, president of Broadridge’s Investor Communications Solutions business, said the company is “bringing trusted governance infrastructure onchain to Dinari’s clients.” He described the custodial model as one that preserves the shareholder rights associated with underlying securities. Dinari CEO Gabriel Otte said tokenization should expand how securities are accessed and used “without compromising the rights that come with ownership.” The framing positions governance as part of the product’s legal and operational design, not as an optional feature added after distribution.
However, “eligible holders” is an important qualification. The announcement does not specify the record-date process, how entitlements are calculated when tokens move between wallets, how voting instructions are aggregated, or what happens if a transfer occurs during a voting window. Those mechanics determine whether the rights are practical for holders or merely available in principle. The planned use of wallet authentication to prove entitlements suggests that wallet control and the underlying securities record will have to be reconciled accurately.
Broadridge said users will be able to authenticate with a digital wallet and vote ballots directly as the platform evolves. The launch uses existing proxy infrastructure; wallet authentication is a future step. Investors will need clear instructions and vote confirmations.
Custody and legal ownership remain the critical distinction
Tokenization does not automatically make a token holder the registered shareholder. In Dinari’s model, the underlying security remains in custody and the token represents an interest associated with that security. The voting channel can relay a holder’s instruction through the appropriate intermediary, but the arrangement depends on account records, custody agreements and the treatment of corporate actions. A token’s technical transferability and the legal transfer of the underlying security are related but distinct events.
The market has taken several approaches to this gap. Broadridge’s earlier integration with Alpaca also sought to provide governance tools for tokenized stocks. Its work with Ondo’s tokenized securities platform created a separate pathway for eligible holders to submit voting preferences. Those models help establish that existing proxy infrastructure can be adapted to blockchain-based holdings, though the legal structure and scope of rights differ by product.
Token structures still differ: Robinhood’s tokenized stocks have offered economic exposure without voting rights, underscoring that direct ownership, custodial claims and voting instructions are not interchangeable.
Broadridge’s claim that it supports all models of tokenization matters while the market remains fragmented. Its planned NYSE partnership adds on-chain governance and digital transfer agency, subject to regulatory approval. That work, including the NYSE integration, aims to make communications and voting compatible with differing issuance structures. The core challenge is standardization: establishing who is entitled to vote, preventing duplicate votes against one underlying share and retaining a reliable audit trail.
Governance could become a competitive requirement
For tokenized equities, voting is one element in a wider set of shareholder services. Investors also expect dividends, tax reporting, corporate-action processing, access to notices and a clear process for resolving custody errors. An offering that improves trading hours but complicates these services may not feel equivalent to holding a conventional share. As tokenized trading expands beyond traditional market hours, the supporting systems for settlement and post-trade rights will have to operate across different schedules.
Access alone may not increase participation, since retail investors often do not vote on traditional shares. Timely notices and neutral ballot tools can help, but must not obscure who holds the underlying security or casts the vote.
For institutions, the appeal may lie less in speculative trading and more in whether tokenized holdings can fit stewardship, compliance and reporting systems. Voting data needs to reconcile with portfolio records and remain accessible for audit. If Dinari and Broadridge can demonstrate dependable entitlement reconciliation and timely delivery of disclosures, the partnership may make the token format more acceptable to investors who require traditional governance protections.
The next questions are which securities are covered, how eligibility is determined, how wallet changes are handled and whether voting can be reconciled to the underlying custodian. Governance is becoming part of the infrastructure race for tokenized equities.
Takeaway
Broadridge and Dinari are adding a formal proxy-voting path to eligible dShare holders, linking tokenized ownership claims with the governance process for underlying U.S. securities. The move strengthens the product’s rights proposition, but its practical value depends on entitlement checks, custody records, wallet authentication and accurate vote reconciliation. As competing tokenized-equity models offer different levels of ownership and voting access, governance infrastructure may become a key measure of whether these products function like shares or only resemble them economically.
