As a transformative technology real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation holds immense promise. RWA offers a gateway to enhanced liquidity, accessibility, and efficiency. At the heart of this evolution lies technological innovations that are so cutting-edge they cannot help but create big questions. In this article, we examine the potential benefits the gun argument could offer RWA tokenisation, exploring how this concept could help foster innovation, security, and trust.
Tokenisation and Accountability: Exploring the Gun Argument
Real-world asset tokenisation represents a groundbreaking evolution in the realm of finance, enabling the conversion of physical assets, such as real estate, artwork, or commodities, into tokens that can be created, bought, sold, and staked. Tokenisation unlocks previously illiquid assets and democratises access to investment opportunities, allowing a broader spectrum of investors to participate in asset ownership. Amid this exciting technology, concerns regarding accountability and consumer protection are asked, prompting a closer examination of the legal concepts that could impact RWA tokenisation.
Strict liability AKA the gun argument, is a legal concept that holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers responsible for the products they bring to the market, irrespective of fault or negligence. The gun argument can be best posed as –is the producer of a firearm liable for the results of a shooting? This argument has been seen in many legal cases. For instance, in the case of faulty airbags produced by Takata Corporation, strict liability principles were invoked to address the widespread safety concerns. It was discovered that Takata's airbag inflators could rupture upon deployment. As a result, Takata faced significant legal consequences, including hefty fines, for the harm caused by their defective products. This incentivised manufacturers to prioritise safety and quality control measures to prevent similar incidents in the future, resulting in enhanced consumer protection and public safety.
While some may view the gun argument as a deterrent to innovation, it may be argued that it serves as a crucial safeguard. In RWA it could impose accountability on all stakeholders and foster a culture of trust and confidence, laying the groundwork for the widespread adoption of RWA.
Gun Argument Advantages
From a pragmatic standpoint, the gun argument offers numerous benefits to participants in the RWA tokenisation ecosystem. For issuers and developers, it could serve as a powerful incentive to prioritise due diligence and compliance, mitigating the risk of liability and safeguarding their reputation in the market. By adhering to rigorous quality standards and regulatory requirements, issuers can become more appealing to investors by enhancing investor confidence which can then drive increases in liquidity. Similarly, investors would benefit from the protections afforded by the gun argument, as it provides recourse in the event of asset misrepresentation, fraud, or malicious activity.
RWA tokenisation is a much-scrutinised concept and regulatory oversight is simply a matter of fact. Understandably, many investors require assurance that their investments are backed by tangible assets and governed by transparent and accountable processes. Thus, the gun argument offers investors a compelling solution.
Governance, Compliance, and Innovation
Moreover, the importance of robust governance mechanisms and risk management practices within RWA projects could be enhanced by the gun argument. Implementing comprehensive due diligence processes, conducting thorough asset valuations, and adhering to high industry standards allows projects to mitigate risks and build resilient and sustainable ecosystems. As a proactive approach, it would enhance investor protection and foster long-term trust and credibility. In the context of regulatory compliance, the gun argument could serve as a cornerstone of accountability, ensuring that projects adhere to applicable laws and regulations. Embracing the gun argument could allow tokenisation projects to demonstrate their commitment to regulatory compliance.
It can be further theorised that the gun argument promotes innovation and responsible entrepreneurship by incentivising continuous improvement and risk mitigation strategies. Rather than stifling creativity, it encourages issuers and developers to explore innovative solutions that enhance asset liquidity, streamline transaction processes, and unlock new value propositions for investors. While the gun argument could provide greater accountability and transparency, it could also empower projects to push the boundaries of what is possible, driving innovation and growth in the RWA space.
Conclusion
The convergence of the gun argument and RWA tokenisation represents a fascinating notion. By holding stakeholders accountable for the quality, integrity, and compliance of tokenised assets, the gun argument could increase the standards of professionalism and ethics. As the regulatory landscape evolves and market dynamics continue to shift, this principle and others like it may play an increasingly pivotal role in shaping the future of asset tokenisation and therefore the future of finance.
THIS ARTICLE WAS INSPIRED BY DEFACTOR PODCAST EPISODE 10
.avif)
