Smaller pieces can make an asset look easier to buy. But @Dusk_Foundation ’s current private-market analysis makes a useful correction: fractional ownership alone cannot create investor demand, legal certainty, or liquidity. For an SME issuer, treating a lower unit size as a market solution can mean solving the easy part first.
It is a little like cutting a cake into more slices: there are more portions, but no extra guests arrive. $DUSK says the value of tokenization and issuance lies in linking an investable security to accountable operators, eligible buyers, reliable payment and settlement, and an authorised venue.
That matters because a token can reduce friction without supplying buyers or fair prices. The same article says liquidity still depends on demand, useful information, a workable pricing process, a payment leg, and a permitted venue. Smaller units can help distribution; they are not proof that a secondary market will function.
Before offering smaller units, which condition should an issuer test first: lower entry size, evidence of demand, or a venue that can admit eligible buyers? @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
It is a little like cutting a cake into more slices: there are more portions, but no extra guests arrive. $DUSK says the value of tokenization and issuance lies in linking an investable security to accountable operators, eligible buyers, reliable payment and settlement, and an authorised venue.
That matters because a token can reduce friction without supplying buyers or fair prices. The same article says liquidity still depends on demand, useful information, a workable pricing process, a payment leg, and a permitted venue. Smaller units can help distribution; they are not proof that a secondary market will function.
Before offering smaller units, which condition should an issuer test first: lower entry size, evidence of demand, or a venue that can admit eligible buyers? @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk