I don't want to buy an ETF and end up owning a JPEG with a token attached to it.
This sounds obvious, but it's something I started thinking about when I looked deeper into tokenized assets.
Let's say I buy €20,000 of a tokenized ETF.
I get a token in my wallet.
Okay.
But where is the actual ownership record?
Where does the ETF's lifecycle live?
What happens when the fund pays something out?
What happens when I sell it?
And what happens if the token says I own something, but the actual records are still sitting in another system?
That's when the difference between tokenization and native issuance started making sense to me.
Tokenization can give an existing asset a blockchain representation.
That's useful.
But you can still end up with the blockchain record on one side and the actual financial workflow somewhere else.
Native issuance is a different idea: the asset and its lifecycle can be designed around the same onchain infrastructure from issuance and ownership to transfers and settlement.
That's the part I find interesting about @Dusk
They're not just talking about putting a token next to a traditional financial product.
The bigger idea is to make the rules around the asset part of the system itself.
So if I buy that €20,000 ETF, I don't just want something in my wallet that represents an asset.
I want the ownership, transfer and settlement process behind it to actually make sense.
That's a much bigger challenge than creating another token.
And honestly, that's where I think the RWA conversation gets interesting.
The token isn't the product.
The asset lifecycle is.
$DUSK #dusk
What matters most when you buy a tokenized ETF?