Today I went through the latest materials for @Dusk , but I was actually stuck by a single sentence from the official side: Tokenization can reduce transfer and settlement friction, but it cannot magically create buyers, sellers, and fair prices.
This sentence is more important than talking about any amount of ZK.
On August 15, Dusk just published an article about the SME private placement market. It spells out the boundaries very clearly: on-chain, you can handle investor qualifications, ownership records, transfer controls, and settlement; but things like legal recognition, sanctions screening, notarization, custody, dispute resolution, and market demand still have to rely on off-chain institutions.
So the problem comes.
Dusk’s current results shown on its homepage are already quite impressive: the confirmed issuance size exceeds €300 million, covering 50,000+ investors, and DUSK pledged exceeds 210 million. But the Dusk Trade that will truly determine whether “these assets can form a market” is still under Building, and both DuskEVM and Hedger are still on Testnet.
So my biggest question about Dusk right now is no longer “whether technology can move assets on-chain.”
Instead, after moving them on-chain: who provides sustained buy orders? Who does price discovery? Who is responsible for paying the legs and for custody? When ownership disputes arise, do you follow what’s on-chain, or what courts, notaries, and registry institutions say? $BTC
If in the end these issues still heavily depend on NPEX, custodians, banks, and regulatory venues, then how much does Dusk truly reduce intermediary layers, and how many new coordination layers does it add?
I actually quite like the official statement this time that “Tokenization ≠ Liquidity.” At least it acknowledges that the hardest part hasn’t been solved yet by technology. $NVDAB
What I want to see next isn’t how many more “assets can be issued,” but after the first batch of assets goes live—what the trading, holders, and turnover rates actually look like. That data is what really matters when validating the whitepaper.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
This sentence is more important than talking about any amount of ZK.
On August 15, Dusk just published an article about the SME private placement market. It spells out the boundaries very clearly: on-chain, you can handle investor qualifications, ownership records, transfer controls, and settlement; but things like legal recognition, sanctions screening, notarization, custody, dispute resolution, and market demand still have to rely on off-chain institutions.
So the problem comes.
Dusk’s current results shown on its homepage are already quite impressive: the confirmed issuance size exceeds €300 million, covering 50,000+ investors, and DUSK pledged exceeds 210 million. But the Dusk Trade that will truly determine whether “these assets can form a market” is still under Building, and both DuskEVM and Hedger are still on Testnet.
So my biggest question about Dusk right now is no longer “whether technology can move assets on-chain.”
Instead, after moving them on-chain: who provides sustained buy orders? Who does price discovery? Who is responsible for paying the legs and for custody? When ownership disputes arise, do you follow what’s on-chain, or what courts, notaries, and registry institutions say? $BTC
If in the end these issues still heavily depend on NPEX, custodians, banks, and regulatory venues, then how much does Dusk truly reduce intermediary layers, and how many new coordination layers does it add?
I actually quite like the official statement this time that “Tokenization ≠ Liquidity.” At least it acknowledges that the hardest part hasn’t been solved yet by technology. $NVDAB
What I want to see next isn’t how many more “assets can be issued,” but after the first batch of assets goes live—what the trading, holders, and turnover rates actually look like. That data is what really matters when validating the whitepaper.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk