Input Output Hong Kong (IOHK), the company behind Cardano and the Ouroboros protocol, are launching the worlds first security token blockchain alongside security token issuance platform Polymath, as announced on May 13, 2019, at Consensus. This blockchain will be the first of its kind with Hoskinson as the chief architect.
Tokenization Takes a Step Forward
After the recent announcement of a blockchain framework for Ethiopia, Charles Hoskinson and his company IOHK are already working on their next mission – a security token blockchain to further their goal of tokenization.
The platform will be called ‘Polymesh’ and will be the first-ever blockchain designed to run a security token. Most security issuances are done on platforms like Polymath; they never build their own blockchain for it. With the introduction of Polymesh, the dream of tokenization real-world assets has taken a giant leap.
This kind of product is not suited for launch on any existing smart contract platform like Ethereum or Tron because of the legal obligations that come along with a security token. Whilst Ethereum has successfully implemented token launches on its blockchain through the ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards, the platform doesn’t have the capability to integrate necessary compliance measures for a security.
Polymath has issued all of its STO’s on the Ethereum blockchain and believes the lack of compliance is a key reason for adoption not picking up. Polymesh is being built from the ground up to enable regulatory considerations and the needs of global capital markets.
Tokenized Assets Must Pick Up
After an Estonian startup started to tokenized FANG stocks on the Ethereum blockchain, there have been no major breakthroughs in tokenization.
Tokenization of real-world assets has a plethora of benefits – from increased fungibility to speed of transfer, the entire process can both reduce costs and make customers lives easier.
Despite the revelation that it won’t be a purely public network, it will still remain a permissionless ledger with Hoskinson stressing the need for a blockchain akin to this in an open financial system. Both IOHK and Polymath believe that Polymesh can become a world standard for fundraising and equity issuance in the global ecosystem.Tapchibitcoin
I wasn’t clear, my bad. Of course IOHK’s ‘involved’. The new LLC’s purpose is to insulate IOHK’s assets ie. shield its employees from liability from say, i dunno, this community if it were ever to put the Kool-Aid down.
On the other hand, I could be completely wrong, and nobody wishes that more than me.
I gather it is independent organizationally and financially, what nobody has been clear on is whether it relates to the technology. This could be outside of the foundation and IOHK scope, but like any outside project that might use Cardano for a settlement layer.
They may also be talking about a new chain and protocols just for the application. Just like Atala is something that can be used independently of Cardano main-net, this may be similar. Separate data structures and protocols, but potentially linked in settlement transaction.
Exactly. You should never have had the cause for these questions! And to continue, because this area is relatively new and complex, clear, accessible, and comprehensive communication ie. from IOHK, Emergo ect is required.
Is it reasonable to believe we are the cause of doubt? How can a smart guy fail to understand simple perceptions based sources of tension? Has anyone stopped to think about how absurd it is for so many people to have so many questions and uncertainties about important issues?
This situation of course gives rise to many well meaning people here on this forum for example, who in their struggle to resolve this belief vs reality dissonance, simply rationalize the problem as the result of a failure of faith. They then parrot all variety of jargon they have little to know practical or theoretical understanding about because doing so, is in the short-term, less painful than getting sober.
I’m just trying to understand how it will work, I don’t have any need for immediate clarity. It may be that Polymesh is essentially settlement layer agnostic and they just are not able and wanting to say anything until they are ready to publish something. I found a Polymath whitepaper, but didn’t look yet for Polymesh but I was thinking it is likely too new for that.
I don’t really see any cause for alarm, more likely this is good when it all unfolds.
I respect your position but disagree. When I look at this and other similar trends in context, it is incredibly obvious to me that it is precisely these maneuvers which demand detailed explanation. Is it rational to conclude the lack of full disclosure is due to an operation’s inherent benefits to Cardano? I don’t think so. We didn’t create this atmosphere of suspicion, it’s been earned.
“We didn’t create this atmosphere of suspicion, it’s been earned.” … who is we again? it seems this atmosphere is being created by some.
some people are seeing things happen in parallel, and mistaking them as competitive courses rather than complimentary paths toward a realized future.
people fear what they do not know. unfortunately for some, IOHK is a private company (and CH is an individual), each entitled to keep information to themselves and release it a time of their choice. we have no “right” in that regard, we are speculators “on the outside”, and always will be.
When an entity, call it Charles, IOHK ect. accepts funding in return for performance, a fiduciary has been created. Don’t forget that private individuals and legal entities are bound to investors by moral and legal responsibilities and conditions as well.
Charles has such a fiduciary with each and every Cardano investor as these investors are the reason Cardano exists today. Good leadership strives to bring its investors closer in, to commit the relationship over time, not to build barriers and drive separation as you seem to suggest.
"some people are seeing things happen in parallel, and mistaking them as competitive courses rather than complimentary paths toward a realized future."
Your statement is to my point. There is no, new great thing which defies explanation to or comprehension by the average person. If that’s in anyway its premise, then it’s not new and it’s not great. If a sufficient number of people voice a similar effect, then there’s clearly an external cause.
"who is we again?"
It’s obvious is it not? Or is it you are intimating something different?
" this atmosphere is being created by some."
Indeed, by Charles principally
Early on, I feel very much so, especially prior to reality’s gravity. More recently, not so much; that’s my keen close observation without the why.
"where did i suggest this is happening?"
here: "entitled to keep information to themselves and release it a time of their choice. we have no “right” in that regard, we are speculators “on the outside”, and always will be."
Because the greatest enterprises the world has ever known are the product of a long term, imperfect but mutually beneficial collaboration between producer and consumer eg. MIT, Siemens, Apple, Google, U. of Cambridge ect, and the worlds most destructive, a product of enabled-by-us apathy, ignorance, and greed. I see by your response you weren’t suggesting little to no correlation between minimal transparency and ‘greater good’. The tragic irony it seems to me, is the risk of global adoption failure of trustless technology from its flawed creator ie. all humans.
"I see by your response you weren’t suggesting little to no correlation between minimal transparency and ‘greater good’."
i was only stating a fact, they are a private company and individual people, it is impossible to know their every intent or action. we can only see what information they let out, when they let it out.
in this fiduciary you suppose has been created, wouldn’t that trust go beyond simply managing the tangible assets, but extend to other things perhaps more intangible (but still valued), like internal (working/ongoing) information?
i don’t see this as darkness, or against the ‘greater good’, simply because it is currently kept private. as it is in an unfinished state, it has not “come to light”, in this respect. ‘it’ being that ‘internal information’, which by it’s nature is not shared with all.
when things are ready for public consumption; they are shown, the githubs updated, news goes out, videos are made, testing and debate begins. to me, this is all part of the trust created between the parties involved.
i would like clarity as well, a clear path ahead, but i’m happy to check in at the milestones, i do not need a step-by-step description of the marathon.