The hardest problem for Dusk Trade is not cryptography or licensing. It is that tokenising an asset does not create anyone willing to buy it.
Private market instruments are illiquid for a boring reason. Not settlement friction, not paperwork. There simply are not many people on the other side at any given moment. Putting a bond on a chain does not summon a counterparty. It relocates the same thin market to a faster venue.
The usual answer is a stack of three claims, and each is weaker than it sounds.
Fractionalisation widens the investor base. Except regulated instruments restrict who is allowed to hold them, so the base widens only within the eligible set, which was never the binding constraint.
Round the clock trading removes time barriers. Except a market open at three in the morning with nobody on the ask side is not more liquid, only more available.
Composability lets the asset become collateral. Except collateral needs reliable price discovery, price discovery needs trading activity, and trading activity is the thing we were trying to create. That argument eats its own tail.
Which is why the NPEX arrangement reads differently to me than most tokenisation announcements. It is not a cold start. There is an existing regulated venue with existing investors and existing assets, and the chain is being placed under activity that already happens rather than hoping activity appears because the rails improved.
That is the only version of this I find credible. Infrastructure does not manufacture demand. It can host demand that already exists and make it cheaper to serve.
@Dusk what is the expectation on migration? Does existing venue flow actually move onchain, or does the onchain book start thin alongside the traditional one and have to earn its way to depth?
Curious whether anyone here has seen tokenisation genuinely improve liquidity rather than relocate it.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk #RWA
Private market instruments are illiquid for a boring reason. Not settlement friction, not paperwork. There simply are not many people on the other side at any given moment. Putting a bond on a chain does not summon a counterparty. It relocates the same thin market to a faster venue.
The usual answer is a stack of three claims, and each is weaker than it sounds.
Fractionalisation widens the investor base. Except regulated instruments restrict who is allowed to hold them, so the base widens only within the eligible set, which was never the binding constraint.
Round the clock trading removes time barriers. Except a market open at three in the morning with nobody on the ask side is not more liquid, only more available.
Composability lets the asset become collateral. Except collateral needs reliable price discovery, price discovery needs trading activity, and trading activity is the thing we were trying to create. That argument eats its own tail.
Which is why the NPEX arrangement reads differently to me than most tokenisation announcements. It is not a cold start. There is an existing regulated venue with existing investors and existing assets, and the chain is being placed under activity that already happens rather than hoping activity appears because the rails improved.
That is the only version of this I find credible. Infrastructure does not manufacture demand. It can host demand that already exists and make it cheaper to serve.
@Dusk what is the expectation on migration? Does existing venue flow actually move onchain, or does the onchain book start thin alongside the traditional one and have to earn its way to depth?
Curious whether anyone here has seen tokenisation genuinely improve liquidity rather than relocate it.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk #RWA