Brainlet/midwit here.Please don't bully me.I'm trying to understand how all this tokenized asset stuff will play out on a more technical level.1) So SWIFT will go "live", meaning banks will be able to connect and transact via CCIP using Swift SR 2025. So the tokenized funds banks/asset managers issue on their respective private DLTs (or public ones too) are not cut off from the rest (internet of contracts concept, ok). My question is: for example, if one tokenized fund is issued on Ethereum (as in the recent UBS experiment), will those tokens ever leave the Ethereum DLT? Will/could they be bridged to other chains via CCIP (like we see with the CCT standard)? Or will those tokens stay on Ethereum for regulatory or other reasons? I'm using Ethereum here just as an example, but this question could apply to any DLT really.2) DTCC question. When stocks are tokenized, how would that work in reality? As far as I know, right now, stocks must be settled by the DTCC, and that's mandated by law (same with Euroclear in the EU). Right now the DTCC and other CSDs function pretty much as centralized databases. But when stocks get tokenized, would the DTCC have its own DLT where tokenized stocks must be settled by law? And if CCIP connects that DLT with the rest, I have the same question as before, will those tokenized stock tokens ever be able to "leave", so to speak, the DTCC DLT?If anyone can shed light on these matters, I'd appreciate it.
No one?
>>59665836read the archives
>>59666088I didn't find anything answering these questions.
>>59665836We just pretend to understand the underlying technology. To be honest we just buy to see number go up in the hope of one day, having a greater fool buying our token for 1000$
>>59665836Not super well versed, but for 1. I think they are supposed to be bridged to the custodians own chain per the POC from what I saw. 2. DTCC settlement is mandated by exchange not law I believe, you can trade private stock on other exchanges directly with the issuing agent. I’m sure there are laws around the exchanges, but not sure specifically, just you can trade directly with agents. I would Imagine DTCC is not actually needed in the long run since you can cross chain trade the equities directly from the agents DLT into the market, and redeem back to the agent if you needed the paper certificate or a redemption or whatever, so no need for the agent to record DTC’s shares really.
>>59665836>does a dog have buda nature?the post
idk man I'm a marine. Marines just march forward firstStart marching
>>59666185>I would Imagine DTCC is not actually needed in the long run since you can cross chain trade the equities directly from the agents DLT into the marketI think I get what you mean. But the DTCC thing feels a bit unclear to me. If the endgame for tokenized markets is to enable transacting any tokenized asset (stocks, bonds, whatever) on any DLT, effectively making CSDs largely not needed, then why are the DTCC (and Euroclear) so intent on working with Chainlink to bring this new reality forward? What's their motive? It seems like this system (if you indeed can move tokenized stocks off the DTCC's DLT or whatever and transact/settle without using them) could render them somewhat obsolete unless I'm missing something. Perhaps they're still needed for offchain assets, or for onchain assets due to regulatory/legal reasons (so that govs and old worl institutions can retain some control over the markets)?
>>59666133read the archives about how to search the archives
>>59665836Trade meme’s on auradex and stfu
is this another one of those spoonfeeds disguised as an "I don't understand" series of posts?
>>59666264No. I'm actually a fucking brainlet as you can see.
>chainlink>Brainlet/midwit here.yeah we figured
Life will find a way
>>59666274No bully pls.
>>59666255I haven’t read enough on the DTC integration to say, and it is a good question I agree. For them to still be relevant in a CCIP world with lots of different agent chains I think they would slot well into pretty much acquiring transfer agents. For investing in link, if they’re bullish on this removing their core business it makes sense to acquire such a business. As for why in the short term DTC is needed I do believe there are clearing requirements that need to legally be met, bonds come to mind. I would say stronger than that are business processes, if you look at the POC basically they are stapling a step onto existing settlement systems where there’s also a blockchain settlement occurring too, so nothings going to change really in the short term.
>>59665836Not reading all that. Just got off of work and I'm fucking tired. Just buy or kys op
these are decent questions. your concern seems to be whether or not tokens will leave the blockchain on which they were created. while no one here can speak for SWIFT or the DTCC, a couple of principles apply:1. liquidity. you massively increase both the number of potential buyers and the usefulness of your token if it is cross-chain. Chainlink is aiming to create a Unified Golden Record (https://blog.chain.link/unified-golden-record/) wherein all tokens draw from and contribute data to the overarching synchronized system. locking a token to a specific blockchain (by cutting it off from CCIP) removes it from this ecosystem, and limits its functionality.2. regulation. while things appear to be changing fast on the regulatory front, SWIFT and the DTCC and others still need to take it into consideration. e.g. SWIFT needs to make sure that blacklisted Russian banks are not transacting on their network. one solution to this is a whitelist of access to their specific chain, but that limits liquidity as discussed above. a much better idea is to code this functionality into the smart contract representing the tokenized asset itself, to ensure only authorized buyers can purchase the asset, and then set it free via CCIP to join the Unified Golden Record. the UGR will be synchronized across all blockchains, so the DTCC will still know where all its tokens are at, even when being used as collateral in DeFi applications by individual holders.basically, the answer to your questions is yes, tokens will move across chains in most circumstances, though this is largely up to the issuer. chainlink provides the functionality, the market provides the incentives, the government/important parts of the private sector provide the regulation
>>59666475>code this functionality into the smart contract representing the tokenized asset itself, to ensure only authorized buyers can purchase the assetThis is how it's already being done, no? You just cannot go and buy tokenized fund tokens (like "UBS USD Money Market Investment Fund Token", uMINT) for US investors if you are yuropean for example.>>59666475>locking a token to a specific blockchain (by cutting it off from CCIP)But couldn't you make it so the stock tokens remain on the DTCC DLT while the transactions can be made from any other DLT? Don't know if that makes sense.>>59666475>and then set it free via CCIP to join the Unified Golden Record. the UGR will be synchronized across all blockchainsYeah but the UGR is a data container thing, not related to the tokenized assets themselves (see picrel, the DTA smart contract is the UGR basically, while the asset stays on another smart contract using another DLT). So I can see tokenized stocks staying within the CSDs' DLTs but still being connected with Chainlink's UGR.
>>59666555You can’t fault them for it since it’s advertising, but again this pretty much just looks like a normal subscription with a movement of a blockchain security stapled on, the payment is done over swift and presumably while they haven’t detailed cost to mint and move the tokens is either included in this payment or paid when the request is made over the network itself. Unless it’s changed it was confirmed in POC that depository information and matching is all done on swift still.
>>59665836>My question is: for example, if one tokenized fund is issued on Ethereum (as in the recent UBS experiment), will those tokens ever leave the Ethereum DLT? Will/could they be bridged to other chains via CCIP (like we see with the CCT standard)? Or will those tokens stay on Ethereum for regulatory or other reasons? I'm using Ethereum here just as an example, but this question could apply to any DLT really.Just to be DLT refers to any kind of ledger. You can use blockchains (ethereum blockchain) though ethereum DLT is technically correct. And a tokenized Real World Asset == RWA which is a type of NFT, but rebranded to be more appealing while also clearly linked to a real world asset.But to directly answer your question, CCIP connect chains together so the tokenized asset will be able to transfer to different chains and interact with different protocols on different chains connected to the CCIP network (CCIP = internet, blockchains are analogous to computers or servers or databases). So yes the assets will be traded and moved to different chains from their chain origin. Each banking institution will have their own private blockchain to create tokens on.https://rsch.baml.com/access?q=s-i517792VNkDKydHLEioQsee pic related and its origin above.For 2, https://twitter.com/nullpackets/status/1850379412828774542Can't help you since I'm not clear on the entire work flow of these assets brought to market and sold. But the above talks about how much smartcontracts streamlines the process.
How much do you have to pay in taxes for crypto?It's one of the main reasons why I've never sold to rebuy. Like what if you made $2k in crypto, sold, waited a couple days to rebuy, and try to just keep repeating?
>>59667514why don't you just buy and hold?
>>59667523because im tired of seeing my balance go to 20k, then to 16k, then to 20k, then to 16k
>>59667776You're in accumulation phase. It takes time.
>>59666555>This is how it's already being done, no?Correct>But couldn't you make it so the stock tokens remain on the DTCC DLT while the transactions can be made from any other DLT? Don't know if that makes sense.Not sure I understand this. You're asking if it would be possible to trade IOUs of a certain equity on blockchain B while the equity token itself stays on blockchain A? Why would this be beneficial?>So I can see tokenized stocks staying within the CSDs' DLTs but still being connected with Chainlink's UGR.For sure, it's definitely possible that the equity tokens remain on a single chain operated by CSDs. I think it remains to be seen what the exact architecture of the approach they go with looks like. Both options are possible: freely-traded equity tokens as well as equity tokens locked to a specific chain. I'm just not sure what the advantages of the latter would be, when you can code regulatory/whatever requirements into the token's smart contract.
>>59666555>But couldn't you make it so the stock tokens remain on the DTCC DLT while the transactions can be made from any other DLT? Don't know if that makes sense.feel like that breaks the consensus mechanisms of blockchain lol. also checked.
>>59667514That’s called swinging, and it’s fucks 90% of people who try. And if it moons while you’re swinging, you’ll an hero. Just forget you own it till it’s front page news.
hate all linkies
>we're (((moving))) tokens through different blockchains guise!!!111>by creating worthless wrapped versions of said tokens across a gazillion different blockchains >this is what the banks need duuudes!!you people are genuinely smoothbrains kek
>>59669830Wait until you find out CCIP also allows for native token transfers with no wrapped tokens
Payment abstraction layer when?
>>59670361wait until you realize what you've described is literally impossible native tokens cannot move out of their blockchains way to out yourself as a clueless retard
>>59670814>t. noncoder.
>>59670813No exact date but using a bit of guessing, CCIP v1.5 audit finished on October 30th and had a mainnet release of January 15th. The payment abstraction audit finished January 3rd so I'd guess sometime in the spring?
>>59670814thisit's literally impossibleit's like talking about perpetual motion machines
>>59671401yes, you are literally clueless >>59671472???
Wait, so CCIP wuz just a token wrapper all along? Kek
>>59671506i no rite kek
>>59669830the post that killed the threadlinkies are actual retards after all kek
>>59665836Saars? What to do?
>>59672011based sir gay is dumping
>>59672011>Saars? What to do?just counter attack
>>59670813>Payment abstraction layer when?March. Source? I made it up.
>>59668495>For sure, it's definitely possible that the equity tokens remain on a single chain operated by CSDs. I think it remains to be seen what the exact architecture of the approach they go with looks like. Both options are possible: freely-traded equity tokens as well as equity tokens locked to a specific chain. I'm just not sure what the advantages of the latter would be, when you can code regulatory/whatever requirements into the token's smart contract.Yeah you might be right, in the sense that I did not consider the possibility of rules and regulations being applied directly at a token/smart contract level, instead of relying on the settlements happening only on the CSDs' DLTs. Really interesting. Food for though. I guess we'll just have to sit tight and see what happens.
>>59673521It's a very novel way of representing assets, and clearly one which the biggest asset managers in the world are excited for. >"My God, if we can tokenize bonds and stocks tomorrow... it would democratize investing in all ways we can't imagine.">LARRY FINK AT DAVOS:https://x.com/RWA_xyz/status/1882114104405737782It does remain to be seen what the exact details of the implementation look like, and I expect there will be some (mostly positive) surprises in store. We're all still figuring out exactly what you can do with this new technology.For a look at one actual implementation of it, watch Chainlink's demonstration of their Swift integration.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vce745hO4jg
>>59674110>>"My God, if we can tokenize bonds and stocks tomorrow... it would democratize investing in all ways we can't imagine."What did Larry mean by that in your opinion? Because from the tokenized stock/bond/fund TradFi POV I can see it being more transparent/fast/automated and so on, but if the (((powers))) that be remain in control it's not like it would really "democratize" investing that much.
fuck stinkshate em so muchfuck stinkshate em so much
>>59674110>democratizeWhat is the non-Orwellian version of this term?
>>59674366give everybody access to/provide immense liquidity for/incentivize the development of/promote hyperfinancialization>>59674258>What did Larry meanI agree that if the elites remain in control there will not be a "democratization" of investing. This was the scenario we were facing during the Biden term/cultural reign. It seemed likely that the legal offering of crypto/blockchain services was restricted to a handful of well-connected institutions, and even then, only extremely slowly. See the prosecution of CZ as a prime example of the feds wanting to shut down any unapproved activity. But now with Trump's apparent total embrace of the crypto industry, we may actually get democratization. Tornado Cash is legal again and Ross is out of prison. It's a bit too early to be completely optimistic but things are looking good. A relatively free crypto market is back on the table. And the incentives are too strong to ignore, even/especially for organizations like Swift and Blackrock.
>>59674410Do people not have access to stocks and bonds right now?
>>59674410Also, what is "hyperfinancialization" and why is it desirable?
>>59674463tokenizing them makes them available for all sorts of complex use cases
>>59674472Like what?
>9k EOYNO COINERS LINK MARINES 3 <==3 3=3 3 <==3 3=3
>>59674463billions of people do not functionally have access to stock markets, let alone their derivatives or new primitives>>59674468the financialization of everything. it's not necessarily desirable from everyone's point of view, but it does seem like a thermodynamically guaranteed economic outcome. people have shown that they will bet on anything, consume any brand for the purposes of what it signals. e.g. sports betting, crypto trading, drinking Logan Paul's Prime. trump's memecoin is a perfect example of hyperfinancialization: you can now invest in a token that does nothing more than serve as a financial demonstration of your (at least temporary) investment in the idea/project/person it represents. it's hard to imagine this failing to continue to develop. but when larry says he wants to tokenize all stocks and bonds so that access to crypto markets is "democratized", he doesn't mean just for us, he means for Them too. we democratize our little free markets so the big boys can come and play with what we've made
>>59674542My only concern is that with ____ you lose. But what's coming seems inevitable.
