I keep thinking about what actually changes when a tokenized security stops feeling like a tokenized copy of something offchain.

Because right now, a lot of tokenization still seems to inherit the old market underneath it. The asset moves onchain, sure, but eligibility, settlement, ownership checks, trading hours, compliance… pieces of the process still feel like they are asking permission from somewhere else.

$DUSK gets more interesting to me if that starts disappearing.

If securities can be issued, transferred, privately verified and settled inside the same environment, then maybe the token isn't just representing the asset anymore. It starts behaving like the asset itself. And that sounds like a small distinction until you think about what happens next.

Markets could become more continuous. Settlement becomes part of execution instead of something waiting behind it. Ownership changes become programmable. Even compliance starts moving closer to the transaction rather than sitting around it.

But then again, native behavior creates native problems.

If these assets trade continuously, where does liquidity actually come from at 3am? Who handles fragmented markets? What happens when privacy, regulation and composability want three different things from the same transaction?

That's where I'm still unsure about $DUSK.

Getting securities onchain is one problem.

Making them behave naturally there, without quietly rebuilding all the old intermediaries underneath, feels like the much harder one.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk