[mand1575]

>yeah are you going to move off the permissions blockchain to just permissioned smart contracts on a public blockchain?

Perhaps for clearing - ownership wise I think it stays permissioned - no investor wants to loose the wallet and not be able to recover their asset.

>One day DTCC and FINRA and the Fed will conform it to their redundant processes so that registered securities can do the same, using the same public utilities as everyone else.

100% - that's the plan but it's a massive regulatory capture to fight. Akin to launching a rocket and you need DoD and hundred other permissions.

One thing to keep in mind - Sec Act of 1933 and 1934 are here to stay - they may get new regs under them but ownership needs to be transferable outside just the normal case of trading i.e. trust, death, divorce, birth blah blah...

[yieldcrv]

smart contracts on public blockchains can handle all those custodial aspects

the smart contracts can be permissioned and have multiple signers and beneficiaries and payable on death conditions, the oracles and admins can be multi signer accounts too

I’m just trying to figure out what false dilemmas you are operating under, the examples already exist

You’re the advocate, in your world, but seemingly stuck in their myriad of concerns that are based on incomplete information

reminds me of how the substitute meat is repulsive to omnivores and vegans alike. hyperledger vibes

[mand1575]

as an omnivores I'm definitely not averse substitute meat. At times it's better if lathered with sauce..

define "their" myriad concern? this is not moving from a self managed data center to a cloud server.

And curious what you think is the challenge with hyperleder other than it hasn't been pumped up by the VC's like SOL and others..