2/ Example: a farmer in Vietnam can own a fraction of a Manhattan building via “tokens”. But who will enforce this ownership? What happens if the issuer deems the poor farmer’s tokens no longer valid? The poor farmer can see his digital "wealth" becoming worthless overnight.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ This makes this model very shaky. BTC, otoh, operates in its own universe and is uncensorable. So it would make absolutely sense to hold on to BTC even under a "tokenize-everything / hyper-liquidity" scenario.
Show this thread -
4/ Also, it's not quite correct to call BTC a "non-income generating asset". BTC is deflationary: the rise in BTC value should be proportional to the rise in total production output.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've had a hard time getting this point across. Bitcoin, as a bearer token, is given value by anyone who wants to trade for it. Any other kind of token, on the other hand, requires a central third party to "interpret" their meaning and grant them promised value.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I can't really put my finger on it, but this tokenize every financial asset idea seems like pure fantasy. I think you strike at the heart of the problem, centralized enforcement. I see no benefit of turning my
$BRK into a token when I still need my broker to handle custody, etc. -
Also, a global money can have extremely high liquidity and tiny trading spreads never seen among traditional investment assets. A quality we already see with BTC on major exchanges like GDAX (0-.25% fee, 1¢ spread under normal market conditions)
@TusharJain_ -
Trading costs in stocks CAN be relatively low (<1%) but real estate (5%), physical gold (4%), fine art (25%), eBay (13%), etc. This frictional cost to market making doesn't magically go away with tokenization.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
