The more I study @Dusk ’s Dutch BV share case, the more interesting the legal boundary becomes.

For BV shares, the shareholder register can record ownership, but the blockchain record itself doesn’t become the legal authority. Dutch notarial requirements still matter when shares are transferred.

What I find interesting is that $DUSK doesn’t try to hide this limitation. Its own work effectively treats tokenization as a better digital record and coordination mechanism, not as a replacement for the legal process.

That changes how I look at the whole RWA thesis.

The hard problem isn’t creating a token that says I own this.

It’s keeping that digital record synchronized with the things that actually matter. Legal ownership, shareholder rights, compliance, transfers and corporate actions.

There’s a trade off here too. If blockchain infrastructure still depends on off chain legal recognition, then RWAs don’t become fully autonomous. But they can become much easier to track, reconcile and automate.

Maybe that’s the more realistic path for institutional tokenization.

Not replacing the legal system, but making the relationship between law and on chain records much harder to break.

That raises an interesting question.
Is the real value of RWA infrastructure the token itself, or the coordination layer built around it?

#dusk #Dusk #DUSK