#dusk $DUSK @Dusk The part of SME tokenization I keep returning to is surprisingly unglamorous the cap table may matter more than the trading screen.
Take a simple company with 10,000 ordinary shares and 2,000 voting shares. Putting both on DUSK using the same token framework does not make them economically identical. Transfer restrictions, voting power, shareholder eligibility and corporate actions still have to follow the rights attached to each class.
That changes how I read adoption numbers.
If DUSK eventually supports 100 tokenized SMEs but only 10 develop active secondary markets, calling the other 90 failures would miss part of the value. Cleaner ownership records, controlled transfers and fewer reconciliation errors could already improve administration.
But it also exposes a weaker metric: tokenized AUM. €100 million represented on-chain tells me very little if those shares rarely change hands and issuers never return for another raise.
A first €3 million issuance can prove the machinery works. A later €5 million raise from the same issuer would tell me much more about whether DUSK became useful infrastructure.
I can see the administrative case. What remains unclear is whether better cap tables eventually produce repeat capital formation, or simply better records of illiquid ownership.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
Take a simple company with 10,000 ordinary shares and 2,000 voting shares. Putting both on DUSK using the same token framework does not make them economically identical. Transfer restrictions, voting power, shareholder eligibility and corporate actions still have to follow the rights attached to each class.
That changes how I read adoption numbers.
If DUSK eventually supports 100 tokenized SMEs but only 10 develop active secondary markets, calling the other 90 failures would miss part of the value. Cleaner ownership records, controlled transfers and fewer reconciliation errors could already improve administration.
But it also exposes a weaker metric: tokenized AUM. €100 million represented on-chain tells me very little if those shares rarely change hands and issuers never return for another raise.
A first €3 million issuance can prove the machinery works. A later €5 million raise from the same issuer would tell me much more about whether DUSK became useful infrastructure.
I can see the administrative case. What remains unclear is whether better cap tables eventually produce repeat capital formation, or simply better records of illiquid ownership.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK