Something about native issuance on Dusk kept bothering me.

I used to think tokenization and native issuance were basically the same thing with different wording. They arent.

Tokenization starts with an existing asset and creates an onchain representation of it. Native issuance goes further: the security itself can have its lifecycle structured onchain from the point of issuance.

Dusk's Zedger design is interesting here because it isnt limited to holding a tokenized representation. The whitepaper describes support for securities that are either tokenized or natively issued, with lifecycle functions such as minting, burning and corporate actions built into the asset model.

That sounds cleaner to me.

But it also creates a harder question. If more of the security lifecycle moves onto the chain, more of that lifecycle has to fit the rules of the issuer, venue and jurisdiction. The technical capability alone doesnt make the asset native in practice.

thats the part I keep coming back to.

Does moving the security lifecycle closer to the chain make regulated markets genuinely more native, or does it simply move more regulatory complexity into the asset itself??

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk