The "unified workflows" pitch made me picture one continuous pipe, issue, trade, settle, all inside a single execution environment. What I found instead was closer to a set of separately specified stages that happen to share a settlement layer. DUSK, $DUSK , #dusk , @Dusk Foundation frames issuance, ownership transfer, compliance checks and final settlement as distinct steps, each with its own module or contract logic, that converge on the same base ledger rather than running through one shared workflow engine. The unification is really at the settlement finality level, not at the process level, transactions from Phoenix and Moonlight both resolve on the same chain, but the compliance logic that governs an asset upstream is configured per issuance, meaning two tokens can move through fairly different rule sets before they ever touch the same settlement guarantees. I initially read "unified" as meaning standardized behavior end to end, and had to revise that to something closer to "shared final state, divergent paths to get there." It is not a bad design, arguably it's more realistic given how varied regulated assets are, but it does mean the coherence lives at the bottom of the stack, not the top. I'm still working out whether that distinction matters much to an end user, or only to whoever is building on top of it.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk