Dusk is a Layer 1 blockchain for regulated financial markets, pairing programmable privacy with compliance: privacy where needed, transparency where useful, selective disclosure for authorized review, and deterministic settlement, fit for tokenized real-world assets and regulated securities, with DUSK as its native token. Dusk is preparing to launch DuskEVM mainnet, its EVM-compatible application layer, offering builders a Solidity-based route into the network, backed by Hedger, the privacy module using homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs for reviewable confidential EVM workflows. As a neobroker, Dusk Trade sits at the application layer for tokenized financial assets on DuskEVM, carrying MMFs, ETFs, bonds, and RWAs onchain with instant settlement, structured to run as a regulated MTF and investment platform compliant with EU regulations. Dusk's push to bring financial markets onchain runs through Chainlink and EU-licensed institutions, notably NPEX, an AFM-regulated exchange licensed as an MTF, Broker, and ECSP, with plans for more than 300M EUR in assets to move onchain via Dusk. Tokenization is a wrapper around an existing asset, but native issuance pushes more of the asset's lifecycle onchain, something Dusk's infrastructure supports for regulated securities, contingent on institutions holding the required authorization.

Real ownership gets used a lot in RWA marketing, and it deserves a precise definition rather than a vibe. On Dusk Trade, does real ownership mean a wallet holds a direct onchain claim enforceable independent of the platform, or does the neobroker custody the underlying MMF or bond while issuing a representative token, closer to how most tokenized products work today. Those are very different risk profiles for an investor. The first survives the neobroker disappearing. The second doesn't, not fully. Instant settlement is attractive either way, but I'd want the custody model spelled out before calling it real ownership.

@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $AKE $APR