#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
People who have bought stocks have likely seen the words “execution” (成交). Many assume that once the page shows an execution, the trade is already over.
In reality, execution and settlement are two different things.
Execution is only when the two sides agree on the price and quantity. After that, you still need to handle the transfer of funds, asset registration, and account reconciliation. In traditional markets, these steps may be carried out separately by the trading venue, broker, bank, and the clearing/registry system. Since these systems are independent, information has to be passed back and forth repeatedly.
When the amount is small, waiting a bit longer may be merely inconvenient; but when the value reaches several million euros, you can’t ignore capital lock-up and delivery/settlement risk.
That’s also why I’m paying attention to the @Dusk _Foundation’s collaboration with 21X. 21X has licenses related to Europe’s DLT trading and settlement systems, and under its regulatory framework it can combine trading and settlement functions that are traditionally separated. Dusk has already been onboarded as a trading participant, and the next steps announced by both sides also include integration with DuskEVM.
The focus isn’t just making the trade button respond faster—it’s reconnecting the back-end processes.
The traditional way is a bit like buying a house: signing the contract doesn’t mean the title has already been transferred. You still need the bank, fund supervision, and the registry organization to complete the process. What the on-chain process aims to do is coordinate trade terms, payments, and asset transfers under the same set of rules—no settlement until conditions are met; once conditions are met, move the funds and assets forward.
If an on-chain bond can be traded but the final registration is still completed through offline forms, emails, and manual confirmations, then it only changes the trading entry point—it doesn’t change the market structure.
Of course, on-chain settlement can’t eliminate all risks. Whether assets are legally issued, whether investors are eligible, and whether payment instruments are reliable still require proper regulatory oversight and operational systems.
If I’m evaluating whether an RWA market is useful, I’d rather look at four points: how quickly settlement completes after execution, whether the money and the assets can be matched, how failed trades are handled, and who confirms the final record.
The market doesn’t lack another asset showcase page. What it truly lacks is an end-to-end process that can run from order placement to settlement. If the collaboration between Dusk and 21X can reduce waiting time and repeated reconciliations, its real significance will be greater than simply adding a few more tokens.$DUSK #dusk
People who have bought stocks have likely seen the words “execution” (成交). Many assume that once the page shows an execution, the trade is already over.
In reality, execution and settlement are two different things.
Execution is only when the two sides agree on the price and quantity. After that, you still need to handle the transfer of funds, asset registration, and account reconciliation. In traditional markets, these steps may be carried out separately by the trading venue, broker, bank, and the clearing/registry system. Since these systems are independent, information has to be passed back and forth repeatedly.
When the amount is small, waiting a bit longer may be merely inconvenient; but when the value reaches several million euros, you can’t ignore capital lock-up and delivery/settlement risk.
That’s also why I’m paying attention to the @Dusk _Foundation’s collaboration with 21X. 21X has licenses related to Europe’s DLT trading and settlement systems, and under its regulatory framework it can combine trading and settlement functions that are traditionally separated. Dusk has already been onboarded as a trading participant, and the next steps announced by both sides also include integration with DuskEVM.
The focus isn’t just making the trade button respond faster—it’s reconnecting the back-end processes.
The traditional way is a bit like buying a house: signing the contract doesn’t mean the title has already been transferred. You still need the bank, fund supervision, and the registry organization to complete the process. What the on-chain process aims to do is coordinate trade terms, payments, and asset transfers under the same set of rules—no settlement until conditions are met; once conditions are met, move the funds and assets forward.
If an on-chain bond can be traded but the final registration is still completed through offline forms, emails, and manual confirmations, then it only changes the trading entry point—it doesn’t change the market structure.
Of course, on-chain settlement can’t eliminate all risks. Whether assets are legally issued, whether investors are eligible, and whether payment instruments are reliable still require proper regulatory oversight and operational systems.
If I’m evaluating whether an RWA market is useful, I’d rather look at four points: how quickly settlement completes after execution, whether the money and the assets can be matched, how failed trades are handled, and who confirms the final record.
The market doesn’t lack another asset showcase page. What it truly lacks is an end-to-end process that can run from order placement to settlement. If the collaboration between Dusk and 21X can reduce waiting time and repeated reconciliations, its real significance will be greater than simply adding a few more tokens.$DUSK #dusk