I used to think putting an RWA onchain mostly meant taking an existing asset and turning it into a token. But the more I looked at how @Dusk_Foundation describes native issuance, the more I realized the token itself is only part of the story.
Tokenization wraps an existing asset and brings it onchain. Native issuance can move more of the asset’s lifecycle onchain when the right authorization and product setup are in place.
I actually like this distinction because it changes the way I think about RWAs.
Instead of asking only “Can this asset become a token?”, you can start asking what else can happen onchain around that asset.
For regulated securities, that feels like an important difference. The blockchain isn't just representing something that already exists. It can become part of the infrastructure around how the asset is issued and handled.
That makes me more curious about where native issuance could actually be useful as regulated financial products move onchain.
Would you rather tokenize an existing asset or issue it natively onchain?
$DUSK
#dusk
Tokenization wraps an existing asset and brings it onchain. Native issuance can move more of the asset’s lifecycle onchain when the right authorization and product setup are in place.
I actually like this distinction because it changes the way I think about RWAs.
Instead of asking only “Can this asset become a token?”, you can start asking what else can happen onchain around that asset.
For regulated securities, that feels like an important difference. The blockchain isn't just representing something that already exists. It can become part of the infrastructure around how the asset is issued and handled.
That makes me more curious about where native issuance could actually be useful as regulated financial products move onchain.
Would you rather tokenize an existing asset or issue it natively onchain?
$DUSK
#dusk