Two Dusk facts initially looked contradictory to me.
One talks about native issuance Reducing the need for separate custody and registry layers. Then there’s Dusk working with Cordial Systems on institutional custody through Dusk Vault.
So I kept wondering: if the asset is already native to the chain why do you still need a custody provider?
I think the confusion comes from using “custody” for two different things.
#dusk
With native issuance the important part is that the asset and its ownership record can live directly Onchain instead of having the token point back to a separate 0ffchain record. The blockchain handles the ownership and settlement logic directly subject to the legal structure behind the asset.
Cordial is dealing with a different problem.
An institution holding digital assets still has to deal with keys approvals signing policies permissions internal controls and audit requirements. That’s the operational side of custody. The asset being 0nchain doesn’t magically make those problems disappear.
So I wouldn’t really frame it as protocol custody vs institutional custody.
@Dusk_Foundation
It’s more like the onchain system handles the asset and its transfer logic while institutional custody tools handle how an organization securely controls access to those assets.
And that distinction actually makes more sense to me now.
Putting a security token onchain can remove some of the old custody and reconciliation layers. It does not mean a bank or treasury team suddenly wants everyone using one private key with no approval process.
That leaves a more interesting question:
For an institutional Treasury what’s the bigger risk to solve the infrastructure holding the asset Record or the c0ntrols around who can actually move it?
$DUSK
One talks about native issuance Reducing the need for separate custody and registry layers. Then there’s Dusk working with Cordial Systems on institutional custody through Dusk Vault.
So I kept wondering: if the asset is already native to the chain why do you still need a custody provider?
I think the confusion comes from using “custody” for two different things.
#dusk
With native issuance the important part is that the asset and its ownership record can live directly Onchain instead of having the token point back to a separate 0ffchain record. The blockchain handles the ownership and settlement logic directly subject to the legal structure behind the asset.
Cordial is dealing with a different problem.
An institution holding digital assets still has to deal with keys approvals signing policies permissions internal controls and audit requirements. That’s the operational side of custody. The asset being 0nchain doesn’t magically make those problems disappear.
So I wouldn’t really frame it as protocol custody vs institutional custody.
@Dusk_Foundation
It’s more like the onchain system handles the asset and its transfer logic while institutional custody tools handle how an organization securely controls access to those assets.
And that distinction actually makes more sense to me now.
Putting a security token onchain can remove some of the old custody and reconciliation layers. It does not mean a bank or treasury team suddenly wants everyone using one private key with no approval process.
That leaves a more interesting question:
For an institutional Treasury what’s the bigger risk to solve the infrastructure holding the asset Record or the c0ntrols around who can actually move it?
$DUSK