At first I assumed the Tokenizing a bond doesn't make it tradable
There's a quiet assumption buried in most RWA pitches: that once you tokenize an asset, a market appears. It usually doesn't. Plenty of tokenized bonds and funds have been issued and then trade approximately never. A token with no buyers isn't liquidity it's a certificate with extra steps.
Liquidity is the part infrastructure can't manufacture. It's a coordination problem, not a technical one. You need issuers, a real base of eligible buyers, market makers willing to quote both sides, and enough interoperability that the asset isn't stranded in one venue. Ten institutions each tokenizing into their own silo doesn't make a market it makes ten illiquid puddles.
Compliance quietly makes this harder. A regulated security can only be held by eligible parties, so the buyer pool is smaller by design than any permissionless token. The rules that make it legal also thin the market.
Where Dusk gets interesting to me is as a bet, not a guarantee: a regulated venue like Dusk Trade plus composability could concentrate flow in one compliant place instead of scattering it and let the asset be reused as collateral or in other apps, which is how demand sometimes bootstraps.
Still, I stay skeptical. You can't code liquidity into existence. It shows up when participants do.
Who'd actually use it: issuers who bring their own order flow and a real buyer base. What makes it fail: fragmentation across rival venues, an eligibility-thinned pool, or "liquidity" that only exists while it's subsidized.
Worth watching, not yet worth certainty.
@Dusk_Foundation
$DUSK
#dusk
There's a quiet assumption buried in most RWA pitches: that once you tokenize an asset, a market appears. It usually doesn't. Plenty of tokenized bonds and funds have been issued and then trade approximately never. A token with no buyers isn't liquidity it's a certificate with extra steps.
Liquidity is the part infrastructure can't manufacture. It's a coordination problem, not a technical one. You need issuers, a real base of eligible buyers, market makers willing to quote both sides, and enough interoperability that the asset isn't stranded in one venue. Ten institutions each tokenizing into their own silo doesn't make a market it makes ten illiquid puddles.
Compliance quietly makes this harder. A regulated security can only be held by eligible parties, so the buyer pool is smaller by design than any permissionless token. The rules that make it legal also thin the market.
Where Dusk gets interesting to me is as a bet, not a guarantee: a regulated venue like Dusk Trade plus composability could concentrate flow in one compliant place instead of scattering it and let the asset be reused as collateral or in other apps, which is how demand sometimes bootstraps.
Still, I stay skeptical. You can't code liquidity into existence. It shows up when participants do.
Who'd actually use it: issuers who bring their own order flow and a real buyer base. What makes it fail: fragmentation across rival venues, an eligibility-thinned pool, or "liquidity" that only exists while it's subsidized.
Worth watching, not yet worth certainty.
@Dusk_Foundation
$DUSK
#dusk