I have a friend he trade old family bonds through a broker & every time he sold one there'd be a mismatch somewhere the ownership record said one thing the custody file said another, and settlement always lagged a day or two behind whatever the token or certificate claimed. That mess is what came back to me when i looked closer at @Dusk_Foundation s native issuance approach. With wrapper tokenization anyone can wrap an asset into a token but trading, clearing, custody & settlement often stay stuck in separate records elsewhere so token end up being a representation sitting on top of the same old fragmented plumbing my friend kept running into. @Dusk approach looks different because the same asset record stay connected the whole way through, issuance, ownership, transfers, settlement, servicing, & reporting, instead of getting split across system that dont talk to each other. That made me think the real idea here is not just turning a bond into a token. Its about keeping the entire journey of that asset connected end to end instead of adding another token layer on top of infrastructure that was never built to sync with it. Im still not sure how much this actually change once real financial assets & serious volume start moving through @Dusk though. Is keeping the full lifecycle on chain genuinely enough to fix the kind of mismatch my friend dealt with or does that complexity just resurface somewhere else once scale kicks in ?

@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
$CLO & $TUT 👆🏻up