> 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.

> Binance, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange, has already drawn the attention of Germany’s financial regulator by offering tokens that are tied to the performance of popular U.S. stocks but backed by the actual equities. Binance may have violated securities rules when it issued the tokenized shares of Tesla, MicroStrategy Inc. and Coinbase, BaFin said in April.

Binance's version of this seemed relatively straight forward, although you had considerable third party risk. But I imagine if they were regularly audited or had a redemption mechanism for the underlying stock, this is much preferable to the more complex method used in the Mirror protocol.

So much of DeFi is focused on getting around regulatory barriers. I get that the state uses finance and money as a way to control nerfarious activity (illicit substance sales, tax avoidance etc), but it leads to giving up a lot in privacy and freedom. Maybe they should give up on trying to attack it at the money level and focus more upstream. Why shouldn't you allow just about anyone to buy Tesla stock?