Tokenization gets pitched constantly as a fix for illiquid private markets, and just as constantly, that pitch oversells what the technology actually does. Dusk Network published research recently that I found refreshingly honest about where the real value sits and where it doesn't.
The argument centers on 6 stages in the ownership lifecycle of a security: structuring, investor onboarding, subscription and issuance, transfer and settlement, servicing, and secondary trading, each traditionally handled by a different intermediary keeping its own records. Dusk's point is that tokenization creates value by connecting those stages around one shared, controlled record instead of letting issuers, administrators, and venues each keep separate versions that need constant reconciliation. Citing the European Central Bank's own survey on enterprise access to finance, Dusk notes small business financing already relies heavily on bank lending precisely because alternative routes are so fragmented. For a Dutch private company, incorporation and share transfers still involve a civil law notary and a legally maintained shareholder register, and tokenization has to plug into that reality, ideally under frameworks like the EU's DLT Pilot Regime, rather than create a second, competing record nobody trusts as authoritative.
What struck me most is what Dusk explicitly says tokenization cannot do. Fractional ownership alone doesn't create investor demand, legal certainty, or liquidity, a point the OECD's own research on asset tokenization backs up. Secondary market liquidity still depends on real buyers, real sellers, and a venue actually licensed to operate.
Most projects in this space avoid stating their own limitations this clearly. Dusk did it anyway.
DUSK secures the infrastructure this entire framework depends on.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
$BTW
The argument centers on 6 stages in the ownership lifecycle of a security: structuring, investor onboarding, subscription and issuance, transfer and settlement, servicing, and secondary trading, each traditionally handled by a different intermediary keeping its own records. Dusk's point is that tokenization creates value by connecting those stages around one shared, controlled record instead of letting issuers, administrators, and venues each keep separate versions that need constant reconciliation. Citing the European Central Bank's own survey on enterprise access to finance, Dusk notes small business financing already relies heavily on bank lending precisely because alternative routes are so fragmented. For a Dutch private company, incorporation and share transfers still involve a civil law notary and a legally maintained shareholder register, and tokenization has to plug into that reality, ideally under frameworks like the EU's DLT Pilot Regime, rather than create a second, competing record nobody trusts as authoritative.
What struck me most is what Dusk explicitly says tokenization cannot do. Fractional ownership alone doesn't create investor demand, legal certainty, or liquidity, a point the OECD's own research on asset tokenization backs up. Secondary market liquidity still depends on real buyers, real sellers, and a venue actually licensed to operate.
Most projects in this space avoid stating their own limitations this clearly. Dusk did it anyway.
DUSK secures the infrastructure this entire framework depends on.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
$BTW