Ran a sizing exercise today that nobody in this class has done yet.... how much throughput does a real securities market actually demand, and can a committee-based L1 carry it?
Start with the honest numbers from the old world. Euronext processes millions of trades daily across its venues, but heres the detail that matters, the TRADES arent the settlement load. Netting compresses them, end-of-day, a days churn between two parties collapses into one net obligation. The old buildings famous inefficiency, batch processing, is also its famous compression trick.... t+2 exists partly BECAUSE netting needs a window to work in.
Now the onchain version. Atomic dvp settlement, every trade settling individually, instantly, means the netting window dissapears.... and with it the compression. Gross settlement is the price of instant finality. A market doing a million trades settles a million times, not once. The throughput demand isnt tradfi's settlement volume.... its tradfi's TRADE volume, wich is orders of magnitude larger.
So the sizing question becomes real. Committee consensus buys low latency, but every settlement layer has a ceiling, and regulated markets at scale would test it. Dusks architecture answers with layering.... execution upstairs on duskevm, batching many trades into compressed commitments settling down to duskds. Notice what that is, structuraly. Netting, reinvented, with cryptographic receipts instead of clearinghouse trust. The rollup batch IS the netting window, shrunk from days to minutes.
The insight I didnt expect, the modular stack isnt just a developer convenience.... its the scaling answer to the gross-settlement problem that atomic dvp creates. The old market compressed with lawyers, the new one compresses with proofs.
What I still want, actual batch cadence and capacity figures once mainnet runs under load. Ceilings are theoretical untill traffic finds them.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
Start with the honest numbers from the old world. Euronext processes millions of trades daily across its venues, but heres the detail that matters, the TRADES arent the settlement load. Netting compresses them, end-of-day, a days churn between two parties collapses into one net obligation. The old buildings famous inefficiency, batch processing, is also its famous compression trick.... t+2 exists partly BECAUSE netting needs a window to work in.
Now the onchain version. Atomic dvp settlement, every trade settling individually, instantly, means the netting window dissapears.... and with it the compression. Gross settlement is the price of instant finality. A market doing a million trades settles a million times, not once. The throughput demand isnt tradfi's settlement volume.... its tradfi's TRADE volume, wich is orders of magnitude larger.
So the sizing question becomes real. Committee consensus buys low latency, but every settlement layer has a ceiling, and regulated markets at scale would test it. Dusks architecture answers with layering.... execution upstairs on duskevm, batching many trades into compressed commitments settling down to duskds. Notice what that is, structuraly. Netting, reinvented, with cryptographic receipts instead of clearinghouse trust. The rollup batch IS the netting window, shrunk from days to minutes.
The insight I didnt expect, the modular stack isnt just a developer convenience.... its the scaling answer to the gross-settlement problem that atomic dvp creates. The old market compressed with lawyers, the new one compresses with proofs.
What I still want, actual batch cadence and capacity figures once mainnet runs under load. Ceilings are theoretical untill traffic finds them.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK