@Dusk_Foundation Yes...,I thought the phrase “Onchain Securities” was mostly about putting securities on a blockchain.
But the more I sit with the idea, the less simple that sounds.
The word that keeps pulling my attention back is infrastructure.
If securities are moving onchain, then the question isn't only whether they can exist there. It becomes a question of what needs to exist underneath them for that to actually make sense.
That changes the way I read Dusk.
I wasn't expecting the infrastructure itself to become the interesting part...Yet once the focus shifts from the asset to the system supporting it, the discusion feels different. A security onchain is one thing. Building the infrastructure around it is another.
And that distinction matters because infrastructure tends to be less visible. People notice the asset, the transaction, the interface. They don't necesarily notice everything that has to work around those things.
I kept coming back to that gap.
Maybe the real problem isn't simply bringing securities onchain. Maybe it is figuring out what the underlying infrastructure needs to look like once securities are actually expected to operate there.
I don't think the answer becomes obvious just by saying “Onchain.”
If anything, that phrase seems to create another question:
What does infrastructure need to become before onchain securities stop being an idea and start feeling like something the system was actually built to support let's see 🤔.
#dusk
$DUSK $PORTAL $BTW
But the more I sit with the idea, the less simple that sounds.
The word that keeps pulling my attention back is infrastructure.
If securities are moving onchain, then the question isn't only whether they can exist there. It becomes a question of what needs to exist underneath them for that to actually make sense.
That changes the way I read Dusk.
I wasn't expecting the infrastructure itself to become the interesting part...Yet once the focus shifts from the asset to the system supporting it, the discusion feels different. A security onchain is one thing. Building the infrastructure around it is another.
And that distinction matters because infrastructure tends to be less visible. People notice the asset, the transaction, the interface. They don't necesarily notice everything that has to work around those things.
I kept coming back to that gap.
Maybe the real problem isn't simply bringing securities onchain. Maybe it is figuring out what the underlying infrastructure needs to look like once securities are actually expected to operate there.
I don't think the answer becomes obvious just by saying “Onchain.”
If anything, that phrase seems to create another question:
What does infrastructure need to become before onchain securities stop being an idea and start feeling like something the system was actually built to support let's see 🤔.
#dusk
$DUSK $PORTAL $BTW