#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Been sitting with this since a conversation last Thursday that I handled badly at the time.
A building goes up under one set of fire regulations. Twenty years later the code changes. The building doesnt become illegal— it stands, grandfathered, until somebody touches it . Then the new rules apply to whatever you altered ,and sometimes to the whole structure.
Everyone accepts this. Nobody thinks its strange that a wall built legally in 1998 might need to come down in 2026.
Now put a regulated security on a settlement layer where the compliance rules live inside the contract.
Dusk describe compliance checks enforced in smart contracts rather than manual back office processes, and thats a genuine improvement —the rule applies when the transfer happens instead of getting reviewed afterwards.eligibility, limits, transfer restrictions, all executing rather tha being checked
but rules written into an issued asset were written under the regulation that existed on the day it was issued
Where the building comparison stops working is inspection. an fire officer can walk into a structure, see the old wiring, and require it changed. theres a physical thing to look at and a person with authority to look
an issued asset with compliance logic already executing has no equivalent walk-through. the rule isnt a wall someone can point at, its behaviour, and updating it means either upgradeability that weakens the guarantee or a migration nobody planned for
the strange part is that putting compliance in code makes it MORE reliable and less revisable at the same time, and I dont know anyone who has solved that
whats your take
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
$MAGMA