TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
đź’ĄAn Elegant Approach to Consensusđź’Ą
Stefan Thomas @justmoon CEO and founder of Coil, co-creator of Interledger, and former CTO of Ripple
December 16, 2022
post photo preview

It’s the age-old debate between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, brought back to the forefront of people’s minds by Ethereum's successful merge back in September.

The critiques of both are well documented. One side will point to the fact that Bitcoin consumes energy at a significant scale. Others will highlight Ethereum’s new realities when it comes to concentration of power. Post merge, Lido plus three of the largest exchanges control over 50% of staked ETH.

Neither solves for governance, evidenced by the fact that both Bitcoin and Ethereum manage governance off-chain.

In this piece, I’ll argue that there’s a more direct solution; one that holds advantages over Proof of Work and Proof of Stake in terms of energy use and governance controls.

What’s neat is that this solution is based on the already existing, informal process that underlies both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake—and any other consensus mechanism for that matter.

That’s because consensus is something that humans do naturally and intuitively all the time. We can formalize that process and automate some of the more tedious parts. This is how we get to a foundational form of consensus without a lot of extra steps.

Proof of Work: How we got here

Decentralized, anonymous ledgers all face the same challenge. In designing a system that allows anyone to participate, you need a way to decide between equally valid ledgers to ensure that everyone stays in agreement. The obvious answer is some kind of voting mechanism. But as with any fair and equitable voting mechanism, you need to prevent any single person or entity from having more votes than they should.

One way to frame this is that the problem we’re trying to solve is a form of digital democracy.

Proof of Work’s approach requires participants to contribute computing power or hashing to the system. We can think of miners "voting" with their computing power by choosing one of the valid blockchains and attempting to extend it. After all, you can’t fake computing power. And as the value of the system grows and competition for computing power intensifies, the cost of outvoting the rest of the system goes up along with it.

That’s how we achieve consensus anonymously—Proof of Work in a nutshell.

Of course, computational power is essentially a proxy for energy consumption, and the last thing the world needs at the moment is wasted energy. We can minimize waste by using stranded or surplus energy but there is no way around the fact that any computer doing proof-of-work could always be doing useful calculations instead.

The last point I’ll make here is on governance. In the early days of Bitcoin, some protocol changes were indeed voted on and decided by miners. But that approach came to a head during the debate around block size and scalability, what Coindesk, at the time, described as a “constitutional crisis.” In some contexts, miners’ incentives aren’t aligned with the rest of the network. In the context of block size for example, miners prefer smaller blocks to force users to pay them higher fees.

Naturally, the community didn’t take that lying down and turned to extra-protocol forms of governance as a response as well as hard forks. Eventually, this put enough pressure on miners such that a compromise was reached. The point is that Bitcoin isn't governed purely by proof-of-work. Important strategic decisions are made through a political process outside of the protocol and not simply by the majority of miners.

Given these limitations, there has always been interest in potential alternatives to Proof of Work.

Proof of Stake: The popular alternative

If we think about consensus mechanisms as forms of democracy, then Proof of Stake would be a plutocracy. You might call it Proof of Wealth.

Instead of computing power, votes in a Proof of Stake system are counted proportional to the number of tokens a person or entity stakes. Assuming tokens have been broadly distributed among many unaffiliated participants, decentralization is achieved without the energy needs of Proof of Work.

Just as you can’t fake computing power, you also can’t create tokens out of thin air. Sure, a well-capitalized organization could buy up tokens to increase their voting power but that’s by design. As a rule, Proof of Stake is a consensus mechanism typically dominated by aggregators of tokens such as exchanges or DeFi platforms.

When those staked tokens are also tied to governance of the ledger itself, it creates a feedback loop, which tends toward inequality and power concentration. The more tokens you have, the more votes you have. If you can turn that power into greater profits, you can turn those profits back into greater power. Keep doing this and you will eventually fully control the system.

This is less of an issue if the system is still in competition with other Layer 1s. We’re generally fine with corporations being governed by insiders such as shareholders or—in the case of co-ops—workers, as long as consumers still have a choice. If the company makes a bad product, you can buy a different one, and if they're an awful employer you can work someplace else. If an evil dictator takes over a corporation, it will lose customers and employees, a natural form of checks and balances.

Problems start when corporations become too entrenched and consumers lose that choice, which is when we typically see unchecked bad behavior. The same applies to a consensus system. While it still competes with other systems, those checks and balances continue to exist. But if it becomes universal, then unchecked concentration of power becomes everyone’s problem.

(It’s one reason why I’m so passionate about Interledger. With cross-blockchain interoperability, you get persistent competition between consensus systems, which serves as an additional layer of checks and balances. We’ll get into that more in a future post.)

Ethereum solves for this by taking governance off-chain, including, as they describe, both “social and technical processes.” But when power transitions from votes and well-defined rules within the system to more informal processes outside the system, it's difficult to guarantee transparency and fair representation. 

Just like Proof of Work, Proof of Stake defers the issue of governance.

Beyond questions around governance, a more common criticism highlights the circular logic inherent in any Proof of Stake system:

In order to know how many tokens each person has, you need to know the status of the current ledger.

In order to know the status of the current ledger, you need to know how the majority of the staked tokens has voted.

Any Proof of Stake system has this problem. Anyone who has access to the keys of previous validators could create an alternative ledger history that’s completely and equally valid. There are workarounds, such as creating regular ledger checkpoints, but this raises further questions—e.g. what is the next checkpoint, how are checkpoints determined, etc. An already nebulous off-chain governance system now must make even more arbitrary decisions.

Consequently, Proof of Stake requires myriad features that account for flaws and potential attack vectors that are inherent in its design. (Lyn Alden has a great writeup on this subject.)

There are potential regulatory hurdles as well. Hours after the Merge, SEC chief Gary Gensler told reporters that he thought Proof of Stake tokens looked like securities due to staking rewards.

All roads lead to Rome

So where does that leave us?

Proof of Work is simple, relatively reliable, and expends a ton of energy.

Proof of Stake is complex, logically awkward, and plutocratic.

Neither solves the question of governance.

Surely, there’s a better way.

In fact, there is—one that’s already working in the real world—but first, let’s take a step back and take a look at how we choose a consensus mechanism in the first place.

Think of it this way: Most people don’t consider the consensus mechanism itself when deciding who they want to be in consensus with. Maybe you heard about a cool gaming NFT project that you want to support. It happens to be on the Ethereum ledger, which is Proof of Stake.

Or maybe you’re looking for alternative assets as part of a diversified investment portfolio. You choose Bitcoin, which is Proof of Work. Or maybe you chose it because it’s the most popular and longest running.

In deciding what chain to participate in, you’ve made the decision based on your particular use case, needs, or target community.

In other words, the first choice you make isn’t about the consensus mechanism itself. Instead, it’s: Who do you want to be in consensus with?

Understanding consensus

Now that we’ve established this central choice that any participant needs to make, let’s take another step back.

What is consensus, anyway?

Here’s my definition: Consensus is a process of voluntary agreement.

In society, consensus establishes the ground rules for cooperation, enabling us to efficiently interact and transact with one another.

For example, I’m able to go to the grocery store to buy food and supplies because of consensus. There’s consensus on things like the monetary system, the legal system, languages, and certain social norms. If we can’t agree on how to make payment, how to settle disputes, or how to communicate, it’s going to be a tough time at the supermarket. Most likely, I won’t be able to buy my groceries and my grocer won’t be able to sell their products.

You and I might have different opinions on how our country should be run. We might be on the opposite sides of a political issue. But if my side loses the vote, I’ll still voluntarily agree to follow your rule so that we can collectively move forward. Despite our disagreements, we find a way to reach consensus such that progress can be made and peace maintained.

Part of it is because not coming to consensus comes with huge costs. Ideally, we’d like to avoid a revolution or civil war. Or in blockchain parlance, a fork.

The key point, again, is that consensus is voluntary. You can claim that you’re actually Napoleon—no one can stop you. But you won’t be in consensus with the rest of society, which will create friction and increase your social and economic interaction costs. Because of this, it’s rare in practice to run into someone who strays too far from the norms of social consensus. The benefits of consensus outweigh the cost of not being Napoleon for most people most of the time.

We want to agree on transactions that have occurred. We might disagree on the exact order of when those transactions came in—this could be simply due to being located at different distances on the globe from where a transaction originated. But we seek agreement anyway because any order—as long as it is universally accepted—allows us to transact.

Proof of Association: A more direct approach

Here’s what we’ve established so far:

First, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, and so on are consensus systems designed to achieve voluntary agreement.

Second, before we even get to the "how" of consensus, we first need to choose who we want to be in consensus with, which, in turn, is based on who we want to interact and transact with.

Third, consensus is voluntary—people reach consensus because it serves as a foundation for transacting with each other.

Given that, what if I could just describe who I want to be in consensus with and have an algorithm that keeps me in sync with the people I’ve selected?

Spoiler alert: You can—which brings us to the concept behind Proof of Association.

Instinctively, if we knew who we want to be in consensus with, all we would need to do is look at their ledger and make sure that ours is the same. If it is, we’re in sync; we’re in consensus. It is a little bit more complicated in practice, but not much.

The first step is to write down a list of those people or entities you’d like to be in consensus with.

Once you write down that list, you hand it over to a software program that will scan the network and listen for people on your list. When enough of those people vote for a particular ledger—a quorum—consensus is achieved. (Honest nodes commit to never changing their vote.)

Since you’re writing your own list, you don’t need to worry about voting spam. If someone joins the ledger with 10,000 nodes that nobody cares about, they'll simply be ignored.

And because everyone participating—voluntarily, of course—is incentivized to maintain and improve consensus, the system will naturally evolve toward a more robust and decentralized structure. That could mean:

  • Adding more reliable people or entities to your list
  • Removing unreliable people or entities
  • Aligning your list to be similar to the lists of other participants
  • Changing your list toward having a more diverse set of validators across people, organizations, and geographical locations

As a result, such a system will naturally iterate to create ever more trustworthy states. Just like our real-life interactions, trust is developed and strengthened over time. Someone might have a lot of influence over the network because they are included in a lot of other people's lists, but if, for any reason, they break bad and lose the trust of other participants, they can be quickly dropped by the rest of the network in a way that isn't typically possible with Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.

Here, the age-old adage applies—it takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but it can be lost in an instant. In that sense, the power of even the most important node is always limited. Just as a media outlet which consistently offers unreliable information might lose subscribers, so too will a bad validator. In a system based on voluntary association, there is always a choice.

What's more, if a validator has too much influence, others may proactively diversify their list even if that validator is perfectly honest and reliable. Over time, there is an incentive toward greater and greater decentralization. Or, more precisely, the level of decentralization that most participants think of as optimal.

It's important to note that we're only talking about a single consensus system so long as there is enough overlap between different lists. The overlap doesn't need to be perfect—in fact, the slight differences are what allows for improvements over time. Generally, participants don't want the network to split so everyone is incentivized to try to keep their lists relatively in sync through communication and discourse. If there are irreconcilable differences between groups, their overlap might decrease and they might eventually split into separate networks. This sounds bad, but is actually just a reflection of the preferences of the members of both groups choosing to separate from each other. Consensus is voluntary and can only be maintained as long as people want it to be.

In general, the network and community will ultimately determine for itself the best inclusions for their lists, which will continuously optimize over time—a form of fluid, iterative democracy. You have your chosen representatives in your list. If the times change, you can vote for new ones at any time. Others who transact with you may notice your choice and change their selection in turn.

Writing lists doesn’t use a lot of energy nor does it concentrate power.

And this isn’t just theory. A consensus system based on this process has been operating for the last 10 years—the XRP Ledger.

What’s cool is that over those 10 years, the network has evolved precisely in the ways I just described. Natural incentives mean that the XRP Ledger is consistently becoming more robust and decentralized.

Today, most participants follow 35 validators spanning geographies around the world, including individual participants, exchanges, universities, and companies building on the network, like my own company, Coil. No entity controls more than two validators, or 5.7% of the vote.

Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, the governance process is formal and voting happens in-protocol using the same consensus process that is used to confirm transactions.

Over the years, validators have successfully passed 45 amendments to improve the system, including new features such as multisign, escrow, and most recently, NFT support. New amendments are constantly being voted on.

But this is not just about XRP Ledger. If blockchains are to serve important functions in our society, advocates must have better answers to questions around energy usage and governance. Such were the weight of those questions when Ethereum made the bold step of actually switching their consensus system.

I hope that, ultimately, this will lead more people toward Proof of Association. It would not only solve the problems of energy consumption and concentration of power, but also serve as a simpler, more robust, and transparent method of governance for blockchains.

What started as a first principles observation of the consensus process becomes the mechanism itself. The beauty here is that in making the principles of consensus explicit, the consensus mechanism becomes obvious.

 

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
“We built the tools of our own destruction” Andre Cronje

“We built the tools of our own destruction”

Andre Cronje from @SonicLabs breaks down how DEFI is being absorbed by TradFi, why decentralisation is fading, and what the future really looks like

Love him or hate him, he's brutally honest and deeply insightful đź§ 

00:09:29
âš  As A Navy Veteran, This Tells Me Something BIG IS COMING!

🚨 This is a VERY big deal.

👉 U.S. Space Force Major General John Olson-just said, “There absolutely is life out there.”

👉 He said it during a press conference. Not in a podcast. Not off the record.

👉 Someone at that level, in that uniform, making a statement like this publicly? That’s not nothing. That’s a shift. A MAJOR SHIFT!

00:02:04
âš  History Doesn't Always Repeat But History Sometimes Rhymes âš 

Alex Jones says bad actors inside the United States are preparing to release a biological weapon on the American people on July 4th.

He claims they plan to blame Russia and China, then ultimately point the finger at Trump for pulling out of the World Health Organization.

👉He says a table-top exercise held last year simulated a bio-attack tied to Russia and China set for July 4th 2025.


The National Blueprint for Biodefense is a comprehensive report released by the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, aimed at addressing various biological threats such as naturally occurring diseases, accidental laboratory releases, and biological attacks. The 2024 edition of the Blueprint contains 36 recommendations and 185 action items to enhance the nation's biodefense capabilities.

This report was released in the context of rising threats from offensive biological weapons programs, lab accidents, and outbreaks, highlighting the need for significant reforms and improvements in the U.S. ...

00:02:42
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

đź’  'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
đź’  Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
đź’  Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
đź’  Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
Clif Highs Webbot Tension Meter For July đź‘€

Hello Humans! Are you ready ? ! ? It's just ahead, getting ready to emerge from the Event-stream as the day counter on this Eternal Now ticks over to July 1...

mostly i don't care so much about what the Normanity (normie humanity) is going to do b/c i have @1HeidVandenberg. She and the doggos and i will be sitting back with pie and milk watching the events manifest in the parade of habbenings.

The forecast is that we jump into the pool of emergence at the deep end on July 1. We will see...

BTW guys, i just want you to note how much elevated your collective emotional state has become. i do claim credit for being accurate on these forecasts of emotional levels over these last 3 years.

https://x.com/clif_high/status/1939309007375888772?s=19

🌪️📉 America’s Economic Storm: Key Signs of Mounting Financial Strain 🌪️

The U.S. economy is showing clear signs of distress, with multiple indicators pointing to widespread challenges across housing, employment, and consumer spending

đź”· The housing market is in abysmal shape, with new home sales plunging and home prices falling for consecutive months, marking the worst May for existing home sales since the last major financial crisis

đź”· Retail sales have dropped more than anticipated, as consumers pull back on spending amid growing economic uncertainty and higher costs

đź”· The labor market is under pressure, with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York highlighting noticeable deterioration, particularly for young adults and new entrants to the workforce

đź”· Layoffs are surging, with major employers announcing significant job cuts and tech giants like Microsoft and Google reducing staff across divisions

đź”· Factory closures are accelerating, especially in states like California, where iconic businesses are shutting down due to inflation, labor shortages, and ...

🌍🟩 Kraken and Bybit Launch Tokenized Stocks for Global Investors: Wall Street Goes Onchain 🌍

Major crypto exchanges Kraken and Bybit have rolled out tokenized stocks and ETFs through the Swiss-based xStocks platform by Backed, targeting investors outside the United States who want seamless access to American equities.

🔷 The offering features high-profile US stocks—including tech leaders, Nike, Walmart, and Exxon Mobil—in tokenized form, allowing non-US investors to own fractions of US stocks and hold these Solana-based assets directly in their crypto wallets alongside other digital assets.

đź”· With xStocks, users can move, hold, spend, or borrow against tokenized shares, all from their wallets, with no intermediaries, borders, or delays. Trading fees are waived for users paying in USD or USDG stablecoin, though spreads apply.

đź”· Token holders do not directly own the underlying stocks; instead, dividends are distributed as additional tokens, and each token is fully backed by real shares held by Backed.

đź”· The tokens are available for trading around the clock, with ...

post photo preview
Musk Turns On Starlink to Save Iranians from Regime’s Internet Crackdown

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a visionary behind SpaceX, has flipped the switch on Starlink, delivering internet to Iranians amid a brutal regime crackdown.

This move comes on the heels of Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, as the Islamic Republic cuts off online access.

The former Department of Government Efficiency chief activated Starlink satellite internet service for Iranians on Saturday following the Islamic Republic's decision to impose nationwide internet restrictions.

As the Jerusalem Post reports, that the Islamic Republic’s Communications Ministry announced the move, stating, "In view of the special conditions of the country, temporary restrictions have been imposed on the country’s internet."

This action followed a series of Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.

Starlink, a SpaceX-developed satellite constellation, provides high-speed internet to regions with limited connectivity, such as remote areas or conflict zones.

Elizabeth MacDonald, a Fox News contributor, highlighted its impact, noting, "Elon Musk turning on Starlink for Iran in 2022 was a game changer. Starlink connects directly to SpaceX satellites, bypassing Iran’s ground infrastructure. That means even during government-imposed shutdowns or censorship, users can still get online, and reportedly more than 100,000 inside Iran are doing that."

During the 2022 "Woman, Life, Freedom" protests, Starlink enabled Iranians to communicate and share footage globally despite network blackouts," she added.

MacDonald also mentioned ongoing tests of "direct-to-cell" capabilities, which could allow smartphone connections without a dish, potentially expanding access and supporting free expression and protest coordination.

Musk confirmed the activation, noting on Saturday, "The beams are on."

This follows the regime’s internet shutdowns, which were triggered by Israeli military actions.

Adding to the tension, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Iranian people on Friday, urging resistance against the regime.

"Israel's fight is not against the Iranian people. Our fight is against the murderous Islamic regime that oppresses and impoverishes you,” he said.

Meanwhile, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, called on military and security forces to abandon the regime, accusing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a Persian-language social media post of forcing Iranians into an unwanted war.

Starlink has been a beacon in other crises. Beyond Iran, Musk has leveraged Starlink to assist people during natural disasters and conflicts.

In the wake of hurricanes and earthquakes, Starlink has provided critical internet access to affected communities, enabling emergency communications and coordination.

Similarly, during the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Musk activated Starlink to support Ukrainian forces and civilians, ensuring they could maintain contact and access vital information under dire circumstances.

The genius entrepreneur, is throwing a lifeline to the oppressed in Iran, and the libs can’t stand it.

Conservative talk show host Mark Levin praised Musk’s action, reposting a message stating that Starlink would "reconnect the Iranian people with the internet and put the final nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime."

"God bless you, Elon. The Starlink beams are on in Iran!" Levin wrote.

Musk, who recently stepped down from leading the DOGE in the Trump administration, has apologized to President Trump for past criticisms, including his stance on the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

đź”— Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! Namasté 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡  The Dinarian

Read full Article
post photo preview
GENIUS Act lets State banks conduct some business nationwide. Regulators object

The Senate passed the GENIUS Act for stablecoins last week, but significant work remains before it becomes law. The House has a different bill, the STABLE Act, with notable differences that must be reconciled. State banking regulators have raised strong objections to a provision in the GENIUS Act that would allow state banks to operate nationwide without authorization from host states or a federal regulator.

The controversial clause permits a state bank with a regulated stablecoin subsidiary to provide money transmitter and custodial services in any other state. While host states can impose consumer protection laws, they cannot require the usual authorization and oversight typically needed for out-of-state banking operations.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors welcomed some changes in the GENIUS Act but remains adamantly opposed to this particular provision. In a statement, CSBS said:

“Critical changes must be made during House consideration of the legislation to prevent unintended consequences and further mitigate financial stability risks. CSBS remains concerned with the dramatic and unsupported expansion of the authority of uninsured banks to conduct money transmission or custody activities nationwide without the approval or oversight of host state supervisors (Sec. 16(d)).”

The National Conference of State Legislatures expressed similar concerns in early June, stating:

“We urge you to oppose Section 16(d) and support state authority to regulate financial services in a manner that reflects local conditions, priorities and risk tolerances. Preserving the dual banking system and respecting state autonomy is essential to the safety, soundness and diversity of our nation’s financial sector.”

Evolution of nationwide authorization

Section 16 addresses several issues beyond stablecoins, including preventing a recurrence of the SEC’s SAB 121, which forced crypto assets held in custody onto balance sheets. However, the nationwide authorization subsection was added after the legislation cleared the Senate Banking Committee, with two significant modifications since then.

Originally, the provision applied only to special bank charters like Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institutions or Connecticut’s Innovation Banks. Examples include crypto-focused Custodia Bank and crypto exchange Kraken in Wyoming, plus traditional finance player Fnality US in Connecticut. Recently the scope was expanded to cover most state chartered banks with stablecoin subsidiaries, possibly due to concerns about competitive advantages.

Simultaneously, the clause was substantially tightened. The initial version allowed state chartered banks to provide money transmission and custody services nationwide for any type of asset, which would include cryptocurrencies. Now these activities can only be conducted by the stablecoin subsidiary, and while Section 16(d) doesn’t explicitly limit services to stablecoins, the GENIUS Act currently restricts issuers to stablecoin related activities.

However, the House STABLE Act takes a more permissive approach, allowing regulators to decide which non-stablecoin activities are permitted. If the House version prevails in reconciliation, it could result in a significant expansion of allowed nationwide banking activities beyond stablecoins.

Is it that bad?

As originally drafted, the clause seemed overly permissive.

The amended clause makes sense for stablecoin issuers. They want to have a single regulator and be able to provide the stablecoin services throughout the United States. But it also leans into the perception outside of crypto that this is just another form of regulatory arbitrage.

The controversy over Section 16(d) reflects concerns about creating a regulatory gap that allows banks to operate interstate without the oversight typically required from either federal or state authorities. As the two Congressional chambers work toward reconciliation, lawmakers must decide whether stablecoin legislation should include provisions that effectively reduce traditional banking oversight requirements.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

đź”— Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! Namasté 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡  The Dinarian

Read full Article
post photo preview
Dubai regulator VARA classifies RWA issuance as licensed activity
Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) leads global regulatory framework - makes RWA issuance licensed activity in Dubai.

Real-world assets (RWAs) issuance is now licensed activity in Dubai.

~ Actual law.
~ Not a legal gray zone.
~ Not a whitepaper fantasy.

RWA issuance and listing on secondary markets is defined under binding crypto regulation.

It’s execution by Dubai.

Irina Heaver explained:

“RWA issuance is no longer theoretical. It’s now a regulatory reality.”

VARA defined:

- RWAs are classified as Asset-Referenced Virtual Assets (ARVAs)

- Secondary market trading is permitted under VARA license

- Issuers need capital, audits, and legal disclosures

- Regulated broker-dealers and exchanges can now onboard and trade them

This closes the gap that killed STOs in 2018.

No more tokenization without venues.
No more assets without liquidity.

UAE is doing what Switzerland, Singapore, and Europe still haven’t:

Creating enforceable frameworks for RWA tokenization that actually work.

Matthew White, CEO of VARA, said it perfectly:

“Tokenization will redefine global finance in 2025.”

He’s not exaggerating.

$500B+ market predicted next year.

And the UAE just gave it legal rails.

~Real estate.
~Private credit.
~Shariah-compliant products.

Everything is in play.

This is how you turn hype into infrastructure.

What Dubai is doing now is 3 years ahead of everyone else.

Founders, investors, ecosystem builders:

You want to build real-world assets onchain.

Don’t waste another year waiting for clarity.

Come to Dubai.

It’s already here.

 

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below 📲
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

đź”— Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! Namasté 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡  The Dinarian

 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals