#dusk $DUSK
Assume I bought an on-chain bond.
The money has already been deducted.
But the bond never arrived.
Or the other way around:
the bond has already been transferred to me, but the seller hasn’t received the money.
In ordinary transfers, this might just mean the transaction “failed.”
In finance, though, it means the entire principal is exposed to risk.
Recently, when I looked at the settlement design for @Dusk , the three letters “DvP” left the deepest impression on me.
Delivery versus Payment.
In plain language:
Don’t let the asset leg and the payment leg go their separate ways.
Ideally, bind them under the same settlement condition.
The money can be delivered—only then should the asset be delivered.
The asset can be delivered—only then is the payment truly considered complete.
That’s also why I now feel that:
Trade and settlement are fundamentally not the same thing.
Trade just means both sides agreed.
Settlement is what actually clears the money and the goods for real.
Dusk’s current emphasis on deterministic finality and a DvP-ready workflow, in essence, is about connecting these two things.
Dusk Trade also puts the coordination between the asset leg and payment leg, along with settlement, into the same workflow.
But don’t market it as “using DvP means there’s no risk.”
No.
If the trade ultimately fails to settle, you can still miss the price, and you can still temporarily run short on liquidity.
What it mainly solves is another issue:
Don’t let me pay money and not receive the asset.
Or don’t let the asset be delivered and the money never come back.
So my simplest understanding of DvP is this:
It doesn’t guarantee the transaction will always succeed.
It just tries to avoid failing in only half of the transaction.
I think that’s far more meaningful than simply saying “settlement is faster.”
Assume I bought an on-chain bond.
The money has already been deducted.
But the bond never arrived.
Or the other way around:
the bond has already been transferred to me, but the seller hasn’t received the money.
In ordinary transfers, this might just mean the transaction “failed.”
In finance, though, it means the entire principal is exposed to risk.
Recently, when I looked at the settlement design for @Dusk , the three letters “DvP” left the deepest impression on me.
Delivery versus Payment.
In plain language:
Don’t let the asset leg and the payment leg go their separate ways.
Ideally, bind them under the same settlement condition.
The money can be delivered—only then should the asset be delivered.
The asset can be delivered—only then is the payment truly considered complete.
That’s also why I now feel that:
Trade and settlement are fundamentally not the same thing.
Trade just means both sides agreed.
Settlement is what actually clears the money and the goods for real.
Dusk’s current emphasis on deterministic finality and a DvP-ready workflow, in essence, is about connecting these two things.
Dusk Trade also puts the coordination between the asset leg and payment leg, along with settlement, into the same workflow.
But don’t market it as “using DvP means there’s no risk.”
No.
If the trade ultimately fails to settle, you can still miss the price, and you can still temporarily run short on liquidity.
What it mainly solves is another issue:
Don’t let me pay money and not receive the asset.
Or don’t let the asset be delivered and the money never come back.
So my simplest understanding of DvP is this:
It doesn’t guarantee the transaction will always succeed.
It just tries to avoid failing in only half of the transaction.
I think that’s far more meaningful than simply saying “settlement is faster.”