I used to think tokenizing an asset was mostly about making ownership transferable on-chain. But that assumption starts to break down when the asset itself comes with rules.
A regulated security may not be something anyone should be able to buy, hold, or transfer. Eligibility, transfer restrictions, disclosure, and settlement can all matter.
That’s what I find interesting about Dusk.
The token isn’t treated as the whole product. The workflow around it can include access controls, investor eligibility, controlled transfers and settlement coordination. It makes me think the harder problem in tokenized finance may not be putting an asset on-chain. It may be making the rules around that asset work on-chain too.
And that raises a question for me:
If a token can move freely but the underlying asset cannot, how much have we actually improved the market?
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
A regulated security may not be something anyone should be able to buy, hold, or transfer. Eligibility, transfer restrictions, disclosure, and settlement can all matter.
That’s what I find interesting about Dusk.
The token isn’t treated as the whole product. The workflow around it can include access controls, investor eligibility, controlled transfers and settlement coordination. It makes me think the harder problem in tokenized finance may not be putting an asset on-chain. It may be making the rules around that asset work on-chain too.
And that raises a question for me:
If a token can move freely but the underlying asset cannot, how much have we actually improved the market?
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
