What’s to stop a consortium of tradfi entities from making their own Bitcoin side chain that can issue securities? What’s Liquid’s moat?
If you were an entity that issues, custodies, or trades securities…and “digital assets” on Liquid was a credible threat to your business model as a middleman for securities, wouldn’t you get in on the action by making your own federated side chain? Why let yourself be disintermediated by Liquid?
This is all pretty new. I’ve been around long enough to see many interactions on this “tokenized securities” play, so my gut reaction is that it’s a grift or just won’t work out. It’s uncertain if the chain not having its own native token makes the plan any more legitimate.
They make some fair points about how costly the legacy system is. But I wonder how much of that is regulatory bloat plus the overmonetization of stocks. If stocks lose their monetary premium and fall say 90-95%, then sure go play with them on a Bitcoin side chain. I don’t think the TAM for this is anywhere close to what they think it is in the long term. Short term, maybe a regulatory arb.
“Digital assets” is DEI/Affirmative action for government bureaucrats and marketing buzz for Wall Street firms. Busy work. Wheel spinning on something that’s mostly or entirely a grift.
What do you mean by “digital”? Are you saying that the map is the territory? If not, then why do you need a blockchain?
This is 100% going to happen to a lot of projects on Nostr too. Which is why we should at least be considering FOSS licenses like MPL in lieu of MIT where possible…
