WHICH MODEL WINS FOR INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE?

Reading through Dusk's documentation on asset models, I realized the core question institutions face:

Digitization (paper → digital but same old workflow)?
Tokenization (asset wrapped on-chain, custody stays off-chain)?
Native issuance (entire asset lifecycle on-chain from day one)?

Most institutions think tokenization is the obvious path. But I'm not sure.

Here's my thinking:

Tokenization = Bridge solution (gets you 60% of the way there, but you still need off-chain custody/settlement/registry)

Native issuance = Full redesign (eliminates all the off-chain handoffs, but requires regulatory approval + complete workflow rethink)

Dusk is built for native issuance (programmable privacy + deterministic settlement + access controls on-chain).

But which model will actually dominate institutional adoption in the next 2 years?

POLL: Which asset model will drive real institutional capital to Dusk?

Option 1: Digitization (stay traditional, add digital layer)
Option 2: Tokenization$NVDA.US (wrap on-chain, keep off-chain custody)
Option 3: Native issuance (full on-chain lifecycle)
Option 4: Hybrid (mix approaches by asset type)

Vote and tell me why. This determines Dusk's actual TAM.

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk