1/ This is an interesting thesis but I think what this misses is that the actual enforcement of ownership for these “tokenized” physical assets will depend on central authorities, and therefore, they are censorable assets.https://twitter.com/TusharJain_/status/989653842257154048 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
And not to mention when you accidentally lose that asset-based tokens.
-
Yes, this is a great point. Unlike BTC loss of these tokens doesn’t mean loss of the real physical assets, which means there’s a strong temptation to replace them when they’re “lost”. But once you have this process you open yourself up to possibility of fraud/corruption.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
