One thing I learned while digging into Dusk's transaction lifecycle completely changed how I look at the phrase instant settlement.
A transaction being submitted is NOT the same thing as a transaction being settled.
On @Dusk there are several steps between the two:
build + sign
submit
admission
mempool
propagation
block inclusion
execution
finalization.
That distinction sounds technical until you put a financial asset behind the transaction.
Imagine an investor buys a tokenized security.
The wallet says the transaction was submitted.
Does that mean ownership has changed?
Not necessarily.
The transaction still needs to be accepted / included / executed & ultimately finalized.
& Dusk makes that distinction explicit.
Even a successful submission response did not mean the transaction is already in a block.
That is important because financial applications shouldnot confuse:
the network received my transaction
with: the network has finalized the financial state.
For ordinary crypto transfers people may not think much about that difference.
For regulated securities it becomes much more important.
A transfer can represent a change in ownership.
A payment can represent the settlement leg.
A compliance-controlled action can determine whether the transfer was even permitted.
So the application needs to know exactly when the underlying state is final.
Thats why I find Dusk's deterministic-finality design interesting.
The important metric isn't simply:
How fast did the transaction appear?
It is: How quickly can the application reach a state where it can confidently treat the transaction as final?
That is a much more meaningful definition of settlement speed to me.
& honestly this is the kind of infrastructure detail I want to see more of from RWA projects.
Not just: assets are going onchain.
But: What happens to those assets at every step between authorization and final settlement?
That is where the real infrastructure story begins.
Do retail users care about true determinism, or is it strictly an institutional need?
#dusk $DUSK
A transaction being submitted is NOT the same thing as a transaction being settled.
On @Dusk there are several steps between the two:
build + sign
submit
admission
mempool
propagation
block inclusion
execution
finalization.
That distinction sounds technical until you put a financial asset behind the transaction.
Imagine an investor buys a tokenized security.
The wallet says the transaction was submitted.
Does that mean ownership has changed?
Not necessarily.
The transaction still needs to be accepted / included / executed & ultimately finalized.
& Dusk makes that distinction explicit.
Even a successful submission response did not mean the transaction is already in a block.
That is important because financial applications shouldnot confuse:
the network received my transaction
with: the network has finalized the financial state.
For ordinary crypto transfers people may not think much about that difference.
For regulated securities it becomes much more important.
A transfer can represent a change in ownership.
A payment can represent the settlement leg.
A compliance-controlled action can determine whether the transfer was even permitted.
So the application needs to know exactly when the underlying state is final.
Thats why I find Dusk's deterministic-finality design interesting.
The important metric isn't simply:
How fast did the transaction appear?
It is: How quickly can the application reach a state where it can confidently treat the transaction as final?
That is a much more meaningful definition of settlement speed to me.
& honestly this is the kind of infrastructure detail I want to see more of from RWA projects.
Not just: assets are going onchain.
But: What happens to those assets at every step between authorization and final settlement?
That is where the real infrastructure story begins.
Do retail users care about true determinism, or is it strictly an institutional need?
#dusk $DUSK
