I used to assume tokenizing a regulated asset meant writing rules into the token and letting the chain sort out who's allowed to hold it. Dusk's onboarding sequence changed my mind: wallets get bound to verified participants before issuance, so eligibility lives at the identity layer, not inside the token logic.
That reframes "restricted": the contract enforces transfer rules only on wallets already recognized by the system. An unverified buyer isn't rejected at purchase — they simply never enter the addressable pool.
Here's what I keep sitting with: order book depth usually proxies for demand because anyone can buy in. On Dusk, visible liquidity only reflects whoever already cleared onboarding. Thin liquidity might not mean weak interest — the eligible pool may just not have caught up yet.
The question I can't shake: is slow liquidity growth a demand problem or a verification bottleneck? And if it's the latter, what happens to price discovery the day that pool doubles?
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk
$STX $DASH
That reframes "restricted": the contract enforces transfer rules only on wallets already recognized by the system. An unverified buyer isn't rejected at purchase — they simply never enter the addressable pool.
Here's what I keep sitting with: order book depth usually proxies for demand because anyone can buy in. On Dusk, visible liquidity only reflects whoever already cleared onboarding. Thin liquidity might not mean weak interest — the eligible pool may just not have caught up yet.
The question I can't shake: is slow liquidity growth a demand problem or a verification bottleneck? And if it's the latter, what happens to price discovery the day that pool doubles?
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk
$STX $DASH
