Tokenization doesn't need DTCC. That's the whole point. Self-custody. Self-settlement. Atomic clearing. None of it routes through a centralized clearinghouse. The DTCC shareholders are exactly the incumbents that builders are trying to disintermediate. Them tokenizing is a defensive move, not a step forward. Got into this with RedStone ♦️... pod. What does "tokenized" mean if the same gatekeepers still hold the keys?show more

> defensive move Swift DTCC and the rest of the SIFMUs and gSIBs understand their role is changing. thats why they've spent the past decade coordinating the migration from co-ops and shared market utilities to protocols. think bigger

cool story bro.

Exactly they are the useless gatekeeper middleman. Thats the whole reason @brucefenton created @Ravencoin and worked with @PatrickByrne and @tronblack to build @tZERO

@redstone_defi

Reid would love to have you @Memesandmkts! Wasn't able to shoot you a DM!

Great point. @CDemanincor interested in your opinion here

Hell yea, Reid

So obvious it hurts

yes

Great pod Reid, looking for more talks like this 🙏

@carlosdomingo What? No more wash trading?! 😲

@tZERO are the rails

The DTCC and existing intermediaries provide enormous value, so I’m not sure this is the most productive story to be telling.

Horses provided enormous value at one point too...

You’re underselling just how well and effectively the existing settlement and clearing infrastructure really works. The statement that tokenised technology is removing the need for intermediaries isn’t an honest statement

What exact piece of "enormous value" from centralized clearing is Hyperliquid missing, that makes removing intermediaries a "dishonest" endeavor?

I like Hyperliquid a lot but comparing a crypto startup with 11 employees to the entity that has been responsible for the clearing and settlement of the US fixed income and equity markets and handled events like Lehman flawlessly is… insane

Wasnt the government and banks taking over inevitable?? People say crypto and blockchain wasnt meant to be this. Maybe folks just had a wishful thinking imagination?

Jason!! @Jason_Barraza_

The question is not only whether something is tokenized, but who controls access, settlement and the rights behind the asset. We will probably see two paths coexist for a while: more regulated institutional infrastructure and more open models pushing self-custody, atomic settlement and less dependence on intermediaries. The important part is making sure tokenization does not end up being just the old system with a new interface

Crypto is about restoring control where it rightfully belongs.

They are the gate keepers of trillions

@CatfishFishy @TheLinkPanda @nullpackets

Strong pushback here, but I think it depends on what layer you’re talking about. For permissionless assets, sure, you don’t need DTCC. But for institutional RWAs, no DTCC usually just means new DTCC with different branding. The real question is who controls finality & legal claim when things go wrong.

You're conflating two things. Transfer agents maintain a security's legal record of ownership and regulatory compliance. That stays with self-custody. DTCC stacks a centralized, closed-loop layer of clearing, depository, and settlement on top, then monetizes every layer through fees while centralizing benefits for its own ecosystem providers. Self-custody via a blockchain-native transfer agent keeps the legal protections and opts you out of DTCC's de-facto monopoly.

Exactly. If the gatekeepers still hold the keys, is it even tokenization? is for the real thing.

👀

💯

@adamjam99

True on-chain tokenization does not require a third party✊

The public will never get used to using a wallet to hold tokenized stocks at least initially.

Tier 3 "oracle" "solution" has an opinion on something they clearly know nothing about, pretty funny actually to watch a bunch of pseudo-nerds trying their best to appear knowledgable. Lowest form of male.

@carlosdomingo Ok I actually agree with this

@carlosdomingo It will have the same properties as tokenized assets you hold. Instant settlement, global reach, can be utilized as collateral, more transparent history etc

The tension between permissioned and permissionless tokenization is where the real battle is being fought

We're definitely seeing this play out in realtime...

이건 정말 황당한 의견이다. 그럼 강력한 제도를 갖춘 정부와 기존 금융 시스템이 감독하거나 보증하지 않는 토큰을 누가 믿고 거래하겠는가? 지나가던 중국인이 갑자기 이게 엔비디아 주식 토큰이라고 이름을 붙이고 그 가격이 엔비디아와 동일하게 움직이는 것처럼 보이게 만들면 살 수 있나?

مثل شبكات الحوالة القديمة - القوة في الثقة المباشرة بين الأطراف، لا في وسيط يتحكم. التصفية الذرية تعني بالضبط هذا

Pretty stupid take IMO