2026-01-16 05:28:10

In 2025, Dusk's collaboration with ING Bank of the Netherlands has attracted attention in the blockchain industry. This is not just a business partnership but also a practical example of blockchain technology integrating with traditional financial infrastructure.

When it comes to asset tokenization, what is the biggest concern for institutions? Fund security. Most blockchain projects handle user funds directly in smart contracts on the chain. It sounds simple, but the problems are obvious—smart contracts have vulnerability risks, platforms may misappropriate funds, and large financial institutions naturally won't buy into it.

Dusk's approach is completely different. They separate fund custody from the entire architecture, designing it as an independent module, and then connect it with licensed banks' custody systems. The core logic is: transactions occur on the chain, while funds are kept off-chain.

How does it work specifically? When institutional users perform asset tokenization transactions on the Dusk platform, funds do not go directly into on-chain accounts. Instead, ING Bank acts as a third-party custodian, dedicating the funds for this purpose. After receiving the transaction instructions, Dusk's custody module synchronizes the instructions to ING Bank's system. ING Bank completes fund transfers and clearing based on verified transaction data on the chain, then reports the fund changes back to the Dusk chain via an oracle, enabling real-time reconciliation of on-chain assets and off-chain funds.

What is the brilliance of this scheme? The ownership of funds always remains with the user or institution, not held by any platform. This not only mitigates technical risks but also eliminates moral hazards, naturally resolving the concerns of institutions.

DUSK8,75%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RugPullAlarm

· 01-19 01:42

Off-chain custody sounds good, but what I care more about is—are the fund addresses on ING public? Can they be tracked? Otherwise, it's still a black box operation.

View OriginalReply0

POAPlectionist

· 01-18 21:04

Bank custody is indeed a clever move; on-chain and off-chain operate separately, each doing their own thing.

View OriginalReply0

Hash_Bandit

· 01-18 02:13

ngl this is actually the play... on-chain execution with off-chain custody thru regulated banks. reminds me of how we solved finality issues back in the day, just different layer. asset tokenization was always gonna need this bridge between worlds fr.

Reply0

AirdropDreamer

· 01-17 09:59

Oh no, finally a project that considers leaving funds in the bank. Now that's a proper solution.

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeNFTrader

· 01-16 05:57

Oh wow, finally someone has figured out the issue of fund security. Off-chain custody really is a solution. --- The combination of ING and Dusk is quite something; it has broken the institutional worries. --- Wait, are the funds always in the user's hands? How can we ensure the authenticity and validity of on-chain transaction data? --- On the surface, it's third-party custody; but to be honest, it still relies on trusting the banking system, which doesn't feel fully decentralized. --- Asset tokenization ultimately still depends on traditional financial backing, which is a bit ironic. --- This set of logic indeed covers most loopholes; no wonder institutions are tempted. --- The oracle feedback is the key part; it depends on what oracle solution Dusk uses. --- On-chain transactions and off-chain funds seem like a compromise, but it's quite pragmatic. --- ING's move was well played; finally, a major bank is backing blockchain.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiCaffeinator

· 01-16 05:56

This is what a real bridge should be, not some barbaric solution that forcibly dumps funds onto the chain. --- Wait, the funds are still always in the bank... so is this still Web3? --- Haha, finally someone understands. On-chain transactions with off-chain custody—truly able to achieve both fish and bear's paw. --- The ING entry indeed signals a lot; traditional finance is taking this seriously this time. --- It sounds good, but the key is whether ING will actually implement this plan. Don't let it just be another PPT presentation. --- I like that the ownership of funds still remains with the user. It's definitely better than some platforms operating behind closed doors. --- I hadn't thought of this approach before; it's absolutely brilliant. --- But in this case, wouldn't the prediction opportunity become a new single point of risk?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 01-16 05:49

Oh, this idea is indeed fresh. The approach of separating off-chain custody from on-chain transactions—finally, someone has thought of it.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleStalker

· 01-16 05:48

Finally someone has clarified the off-chain custody issue; those previous projects were really outrageous. ING's move was brilliant; bank backing is more effective than anything else. Funds always remain with the licensed party, which is probably why institutions dare to enter the market. Earning profits isn't the main point; safety comes first. The real question is, will Dusk be limited in its imagination by this model? This is the optimal compromise between CeFi and DeFi, but it seems we need to wait for more banks to join to see the ecosystem effects. To be honest, those projects that directly put funds on the chain in the past now seem too naive.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeSobber

· 01-16 05:38

The on-chain and off-chain separation trick is indeed interesting. Finally, someone has figured out the custody issue clearly.

View OriginalReply0