I cross-checked the announcements from @Dusk , NPEX, and Quantoz regarding EURQ against Quantoz’s current issuance information. The first thing to remove is the statement “partnership announcement = already in large-scale circulation on Dusk.” In the three-party announcement in 2025, they said EURQ would be integrated with Dusk to provide a euro settlement leg for securities trading and Dusk Pay. Quantoz’s current official website lists the EURQ networks as Ethereum, Polygon, Algorand, Xahau/XRPL, and Stellar—Dusk is not listed. So at this stage, you can’t write the plan as if it’s already live at scale.
But the specific problem this partnership truly solves is quite concrete. On-chain bond trading requires delivering both the security and the payment. If the asset leg is on Dusk but the money still needs to go back through the banking system for reconciliation, the so-called T+0 only completes half the job. EURQ is a euro e-money token issued by Quantoz. The issuer holds an e-money institution license under regulation by the Dutch central bank, and holders can redeem it from the issuer at par. Its value is to add a regulated euro payment leg to the NPEX scenario—not to recreate a high-yield stablecoin.
Risk also can’t be erased by the phrase “MiCA compliance” alone. Users still bear risks related to the issuer, the redemption process, supported networks, and operational integration. When EURQ can be used on Dusk, who provides deposits/withdrawals, and whether securities and cash can be settled atomically—all of these require formal product documentation and on-chain records to confirm. A partner being compliant doesn’t automatically mean every dApp using it is compliant.
When assessing the progress of #dusk RWA against $DUSK , I’ll first check whether EURQ is truly present in the supported networks, wallets, and settlement processes. In on-chain securities, what’s harder: getting the assets actually issued, or truly connecting the regulated cash leg?
But the specific problem this partnership truly solves is quite concrete. On-chain bond trading requires delivering both the security and the payment. If the asset leg is on Dusk but the money still needs to go back through the banking system for reconciliation, the so-called T+0 only completes half the job. EURQ is a euro e-money token issued by Quantoz. The issuer holds an e-money institution license under regulation by the Dutch central bank, and holders can redeem it from the issuer at par. Its value is to add a regulated euro payment leg to the NPEX scenario—not to recreate a high-yield stablecoin.
Risk also can’t be erased by the phrase “MiCA compliance” alone. Users still bear risks related to the issuer, the redemption process, supported networks, and operational integration. When EURQ can be used on Dusk, who provides deposits/withdrawals, and whether securities and cash can be settled atomically—all of these require formal product documentation and on-chain records to confirm. A partner being compliant doesn’t automatically mean every dApp using it is compliant.
When assessing the progress of #dusk RWA against $DUSK , I’ll first check whether EURQ is truly present in the supported networks, wallets, and settlement processes. In on-chain securities, what’s harder: getting the assets actually issued, or truly connecting the regulated cash leg?
