I think tokenized and native are two words that get mixed together too easily.
I've been reading Dusk's material on native issuance, and the difference is actually pretty simple.
With tokenization, a token represents an asset or a claim on an asset. The original asset and parts of its lifecycle can still depend on systems outside the blockchain.
Native issuance takes a different approach. The asset itself is created and managed onchain, so things like issuance, transfers, servicing and settlement can be designed around the ledger instead of treating the blockchain as just another record of an asset that lives somewhere else.
That becomes more interesting with regulated securities.
A financial asset still needs rules around who can access it, who can transfer it, what information can be disclosed, and how settlement works. Dusk's documentation specifically describes eligibility, controlled transfers, selective disclosure and settlement as parts of the regulated-asset workflow.
But there is an important detail here: putting a regulated security onchain doesn't remove the need for the right legal and institutional setup. The issuer, venue and product still need the required authorization for the activity they're carrying out.
So for me, the interesting part of Dusk isn't simply “RWAs on a blockchain.”
It's the idea of designing more of the asset's lifecycle around the blockchain while still accounting for the requirements of regulated markets.
That distinction between representing an existing asset and building the asset workflow natively around the ledger is what I wanted to understand better.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I've been reading Dusk's material on native issuance, and the difference is actually pretty simple.
With tokenization, a token represents an asset or a claim on an asset. The original asset and parts of its lifecycle can still depend on systems outside the blockchain.
Native issuance takes a different approach. The asset itself is created and managed onchain, so things like issuance, transfers, servicing and settlement can be designed around the ledger instead of treating the blockchain as just another record of an asset that lives somewhere else.
That becomes more interesting with regulated securities.
A financial asset still needs rules around who can access it, who can transfer it, what information can be disclosed, and how settlement works. Dusk's documentation specifically describes eligibility, controlled transfers, selective disclosure and settlement as parts of the regulated-asset workflow.
But there is an important detail here: putting a regulated security onchain doesn't remove the need for the right legal and institutional setup. The issuer, venue and product still need the required authorization for the activity they're carrying out.
So for me, the interesting part of Dusk isn't simply “RWAs on a blockchain.”
It's the idea of designing more of the asset's lifecycle around the blockchain while still accounting for the requirements of regulated markets.
That distinction between representing an existing asset and building the asset workflow natively around the ledger is what I wanted to understand better.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk