> But to oversimplify, under the Mirror Protocol, the idea is to keep prices of the synthetic -- or “mirrored” -- equities in the ballpark of the real thing by offering incentives for traders to arbitrage price discrepancies and manage the actual supply of tokens. Users can create, or “mint,” new tokens when prices are too high by posting collateral, and destroy, or “burn,” tokens when prices are too low, driving the price up or down.

This seems pretty similar to the authorized participant model used successfully with ETFs, so not sure if it's actually an issue.

It’s the redemption of the real underlying that allows ETFs to work.

Yes, its important for tracking that authorized participants are able to both create and redeem the ETFs for the underlying. This is why the Grayscale family does such a god-awful job of tracking the underlying. Check out the premium over time. [1]

I suspect these are more like perpetual futures or CFDs?

[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GBTC/discount_or_premium_to_na...

Not always. There are synthetic ETFs backed by nothing but swap contracts.

For example, commodities ETFs typically work by throwing cash in to treasuries and purchasing the total return swap contracts between those treasuries and some benchmark of commodity future contracts.

The major difference with these blockchain tokens is that the collateral (the stablecoin) held against the stock benchmark is itself completely synthetic.

Just about anyone is already allowed to buy Tesla stock.

Who isn't allowed to buy TSLA?

people who live in countries that are under US sanctions i would presume? I'm not an expert on this stuff but I'd be surprised if buying or selling US securities was not heavily restricted for people in sanctioned countries like Iran.

There's a reason they got sanctioned, though, right? Broadly, attempting to develop nuclear warheads in unstable regions. So yeah, I'm ok with sanctioned people not trading TSLA to pressure the regime. Frankly, I can't think of a reason why that would be ok.

The sanctions affect everyone in Iran. The elites and people actually involved in the nuclear program in Iran have access to dollars/western markets via smuggling networks and other underground efforts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Zarrab, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-us-citizens-one-pakistani..., NIOC and ship-to-ship transfers, etc). The result is that unconnected people suffer and the elites continue on like before. Is it fair to deny a rug vendor in Tehran who wants to export some of their carpets to Europe their living because they live in a country with a terrible government?

Of course it's not fair but I don't think that's a compelling argument not to enforce sanctions against Iran.

Is it possible to exert pressure on the regime without also exerting pressure on the people? It's obviously sad collateral but IMO avoiding the Iranians getting a nuke is worth the cost. Undercutting the effort seems the worst of all worlds with most Iranians continuing to pay a high price for longer.

> Is it possible to exert pressure on the regime without also exerting pressure on the people?

Not really. Every government ultimately draws their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. If enough people riot and/or strike, you're done. Even Rome had a grain ration to keep the people content.

Your options for pressure usually come down to making the people of that country uncomfortable, or military action. Neither of which are very comfortable for those on the bottom.

You can also bribe the government to clean up their act, but that has a mixed record. I also wouldn't really call it putting pressure on the regime.