What caught my attention while digging into Dusk is that the real test for XSC may not be whether it can represent a regulated security. Dusk $DUSK #Dusk @DuskFoundation already treats eligibility, transfer restrictions and selective disclosure as part of the asset workflow, rather than assuming compliance happens somewhere else. � The more interesting question is what happens when different European issuers actually start using it. XSC can standardize the contract layer, but Dusk’s own documentation makes an important distinction: different applications can implement these workflows differently. � That means “becoming the standard” is not simply about having the right features. It requires issuers, venues and infrastructure providers to converge on the same primitives for eligibility, wallet binding, restricted transfers and disclosure. I kept coming back to that because regulated markets are full of local rules and legacy processes. A technically reusable standard can still fragment at the implementation layer. So when I think about XSC becoming a European default, I’m watching less for another tokenization announcement and more for whether unrelated market participants start treating the same compliance primitives as the obvious baseline. That’s the part I’m still watching
@Dusk_Foundation