The finality conversation has a blind spot, and it is not on the securities side. It is on the cash side.
Settlement is not one movement. It is two. The asset goes one way, the money goes the other, and the entire point of delivery versus payment is that neither leg can complete unless both do. Break that link and you are back to trusting a counterparty, which is the thing settlement infrastructure exists to avoid.
Now look at how most tokenization projects are actually built. The bond is onchain. The euros are not. Payment happens through a bank transfer that settles on a completely different rail, on a different timeline, under a different legal regime.
At that point atomic settlement is marketing. You have a fast asset leg bolted onto a slow cash leg, and the transaction is only as final as its weakest half.
This is why a euro settlement asset living natively on the same chain is not a side feature. It is the missing half of the machine. EURQ on Dusk is interesting to me for that reason specifically, not because another stablecoin exists, but because delivery and payment can finally be one state transition instead of two systems reconciling afterwards.
The regulatory shape matters here too. A settlement asset issued under EU e-money rules is a different instrument from an offshore token that merely claims a euro peg. For a regulated venue, that distinction decides whether it can be used at all.
What I am still working out is the depth question. Atomicity solves the mechanics, but a cash leg is only useful if there is enough of it at the moment of settlement. @Dusk_Foundation how do you think about liquidity on the payment side scaling alongside asset issuance, rather than lagging behind it?
Has anyone here seen a tokenization project where the cash leg was genuinely onchain, not a bank wire wearing a costume?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA
Settlement is not one movement. It is two. The asset goes one way, the money goes the other, and the entire point of delivery versus payment is that neither leg can complete unless both do. Break that link and you are back to trusting a counterparty, which is the thing settlement infrastructure exists to avoid.
Now look at how most tokenization projects are actually built. The bond is onchain. The euros are not. Payment happens through a bank transfer that settles on a completely different rail, on a different timeline, under a different legal regime.
At that point atomic settlement is marketing. You have a fast asset leg bolted onto a slow cash leg, and the transaction is only as final as its weakest half.
This is why a euro settlement asset living natively on the same chain is not a side feature. It is the missing half of the machine. EURQ on Dusk is interesting to me for that reason specifically, not because another stablecoin exists, but because delivery and payment can finally be one state transition instead of two systems reconciling afterwards.
The regulatory shape matters here too. A settlement asset issued under EU e-money rules is a different instrument from an offshore token that merely claims a euro peg. For a regulated venue, that distinction decides whether it can be used at all.
What I am still working out is the depth question. Atomicity solves the mechanics, but a cash leg is only useful if there is enough of it at the moment of settlement. @Dusk_Foundation how do you think about liquidity on the payment side scaling alongside asset issuance, rather than lagging behind it?
Has anyone here seen a tokenization project where the cash leg was genuinely onchain, not a bank wire wearing a costume?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA