I keep getting stuck on one practical question with Dusk: who actually gets enough value from regulated assets being onchain to change their existing workflow?
NPEX is a useful test case. The Dutch platform operates under AFM supervision, reports more than €217M in funding, and has over 20,000 active investors. That’s already a functioning market, so the question isn’t whether the assets can be put onchain.
It’s whether doing so fixes something that currently hurts.
From what I’ve seen, the investor case is easier to understand. Controlled transfers and better privacy could matter when you’re dealing with regulated assets. But that only becomes meaningful if it improves the actual experience enough to justify changing established processes.
The issuer side is less obvious to me.
If settlement is faster or access to investors becomes easier, there’s a reason to care. But if the existing rails already handle most of the job at reasonable cost, putting the same asset onchain doesn’t automatically create demand.
That’s the friction I’d watch with Dusk.
The strongest case probably isn’t “regulated assets belong onchain.” It’s finding one part of the existing process that costs too much, takes too long, or exposes more information than necessary—and showing that Dusk genuinely makes that part better.
Otherwise, the asset is onchain because it can be... not because the market needed it there.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
NPEX is a useful test case. The Dutch platform operates under AFM supervision, reports more than €217M in funding, and has over 20,000 active investors. That’s already a functioning market, so the question isn’t whether the assets can be put onchain.
It’s whether doing so fixes something that currently hurts.
From what I’ve seen, the investor case is easier to understand. Controlled transfers and better privacy could matter when you’re dealing with regulated assets. But that only becomes meaningful if it improves the actual experience enough to justify changing established processes.
The issuer side is less obvious to me.
If settlement is faster or access to investors becomes easier, there’s a reason to care. But if the existing rails already handle most of the job at reasonable cost, putting the same asset onchain doesn’t automatically create demand.
That’s the friction I’d watch with Dusk.
The strongest case probably isn’t “regulated assets belong onchain.” It’s finding one part of the existing process that costs too much, takes too long, or exposes more information than necessary—and showing that Dusk genuinely makes that part better.
Otherwise, the asset is onchain because it can be... not because the market needed it there.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk