If people actually understood what "tokenization" means to the people doing it and the models by which it's being pursued probably every smart contract chain token would dump 50%. We gotta do better. Tokens are not for 'sending messages'--if you really really want to send a message using a blockchain you can do that without 'sending a token' (but generally, why especially for enterprise?). Blockchains are mostly designed for doing things with bearer-ish assets where the tokens are the assets or instruments representing the assets on a tightly coupled basis.

@lex_node 💯. This nuance is lost on so many people. The missing piece is a strong linkage to the business model itself. Acid test: can the same thing be done without said token?

@lex_node If we’re back to messaging then ppl Are just re-building the same Swift deficiencies and choosing not to actually use smart contracts & ZK tools. Faster horses repackaged as token cars.

@lex_node Exactly, context is everything before jumping into token hype.

@lex_node real tokenization fuses tokens intrinsically to assets not loose messaging hacks that's the model mismatch crashing prices

@lex_node It would be really nice if we weren't so tied to "tokens"

@lex_node I present you a tokenization meme

@lex_node Tokenization should be about real assets and real use, not just hype.

@lex_node What do you refer to when you say "sending messages" BTW, any particular protocol or platform in mind?

@lex_node Yes build things that make the existing chains useful. If that can’t be done than the chain is not useful.

@lex_node so true, tokenization without real bearer assets is just narrative fuel and exit liquidity.

@lex_node bearer asset linkage is the only sane path

@lex_node the real play is tokens as fused asset proofs on ledger no separation

@lex_node basically messaging tokens are value decay