Risk worth precise handling reconciliation between a token and its underlying asset a documented operational risk specific to tokenization rather than native issuance.

The mechanism creating this risk is structural. A tokenized bond still sits with a custodian the token itself is a representation tracking it. Two separate records now exist the on-chain token and the off-chain asset it claims to represent and nothing forces them to agree automatically.

Native issuance is documented as the structural alternative: the asset is created on-chain as the legal record itself not a representation of a separate legal record existing elsewhere.

The gap worth naming: reconciliation risk isn't a bug in tokenization specifically waiting to be patched. It's a structural consequence of representing something instead of being it.

@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $BEAT
$APR

what do you want to research about Dusk?