Conversation
Notices
-
LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Friday, 26-Feb-2021 05:02:09 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} #tokenization of assets onto #cryptocurrency / #blockchain is not attracting the interest that some think it should. https://cointelegraph.com/news/tokenization-of-assets-is-not-taking-off-but-it-really-should [cointelegrah com]
I think the author's focus is wrong. Instead of tokenizing existing regulated assets 1:1, like stocks and bonds, tokenizers should use smaller, relatively cheap items, and even then, they should ask whether it makes sense.
You can already buy mutual funds, and indirectly own a prorated fraction of all the stocks and bonds it invests in. An ERC-20 token based on a certain number of Amazon shares doesn't make sense when you look at it that way.
What could make sense: Tokenized ownership shares of a major artwork that periodically goes to various museums. As a cultural investment, not primarily a financial one. Assuming, of course, that enough people would be interested ... there must be more to it than a financial investment, since token-holders get all the risk of common stock without any chance to receive dividends.
But if it made it possible for museums to display artworks for less cost and to bring those artworks to the public, then maybe tokens could be worthwhile.