Tokenization arrives onchain for institutions — AMA recap with Redbelly Network

cointelegraphPubblicato 2025-12-18Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-18

Introduzione

Sponsored content: During a Cointelegraph AMA, Redbelly Network and AMAL Trustees discussed how tokenization and deterministic finality can modernize institutional asset workflows, moving beyond manual processes like spreadsheets and delayed reconciliations. The conversation highlighted the shift from experimental pilots to production-grade tokenization infrastructure, particularly in regulated markets and private credit. A key focus was Project Acacia, a Reserve Bank of Australia CBDC pilot, where a smart asset-backed security demonstrated streamlined issuance, servicing, and secondary trading on a single source of truth. Redbelly's deterministic consensus ensures irreversible settlement and high throughput, while its zkIdentity system enables compliance checks without exposing private data. The partnership aims to upgrade asset lifecycle management by combining Redbelly's technical infrastructure with AMAL's fiduciary expertise.

Sponsored Content

Routing trillions in assets through spreadsheets and monthly reconciliations creates delays, blind spots and operational risk. During a recent Cointelegraph AMA, Alan Burt, executive chairman of Redbelly Network, and Luke Andersen, chief product officer at AMAL Trustees, outlined how tokenization and deterministic finality can streamline these workflows without breaking existing fiduciary responsibilities.

“It’s 2025 — institutions should not be relying on email-based confirmations and delayed reconciliations when assets and cash move,” Andersen said, stressing that infrastructure must now match the scale and speed of capital markets.

From experiments to an endorsed infrastructure

The discussion began with an overview of the state of institutional tokenization. Over the past two years, administrators, asset servicers and central banks have moved from lab pilots to production-grade initiatives. For Redbelly, the focus is on regulated markets and private credit, where much of the infrastructure still runs on siloed databases and manual processes.

Burt explained that Redbelly set out to bring “all the lovely things we like in permissionless DeFi” to regulated environments, with an identity and custody layer that enables collateral mobility under existing rules. He pointed to private credit and alternative assets as a starting point, where tokenization can structure workflows and prepare assets for broader distribution over time.

Andersen added that for AMAL and IQ-EQ, tokenization has shifted from an innovation theme to a board-level agenda: “Tokenization is no longer treated as a moonshot experiment, but a strategic infrastructure upgrade that C-suite and board committees are actively exploring.”

Project Acacia: smart ABS and CBDC settlement on a public chain

A central part of the AMA focused on Project Acacia, the Reserve Bank of Australia’s CBDC pilot, where Redbelly and AMAL/IQ-EQ implemented a smart asset-backed security (ABS). The goal was to show how tokenized assets and wholesale CBDC can simplify issuance, servicing, reporting and secondary trading.

Burt walked through the current flow in securitization: an originator runs a loan book, a bank provides warehouse funding and a trustee then manages payments to multiple investor tranches. Each party maintains separate systems and reconciles data every month. In Project Acacia, the underlying loans, the ABS structure and secondary trading all moved to a shared infrastructure.

“What this allowed us to do is connect the originator, the warehouse and the trustee on a single source of truth, and then add secondary trading on the Australian Bond Exchange,” Burt said. “You know exactly what you’re holding and can see through to the underlying assets before you price or impair it.”

Andersen described the pilot as a proof point for the trustee’s role in tokenized markets, showing how fiduciary oversight and digital execution can coexist. Securitization still relies on trust law and investor protection, but tokenization compresses timelines, reduces manual breakpoints and replaces document-driven flows with embedded rules, eligibility checks and deterministic settlement.

Deterministic finality, zkIdentity and a shared control layer

The AMA then turned to infrastructure requirements and risk management. For institutions, throughput alone is not enough; they need predictable costs, audit-ready accountability and guarantees that every transaction resolves in a single, irreversible state.

Burt explained Redbelly’s deterministic consensus and fixed gas model, which are designed for capital markets workloads. All validator nodes propose transactions to each other and agree on a combined “super block” before it is committed, which removes forks and reorganizes risk. This approach, developed through research at the University of Sydney and the CSIRO, Australia’s national research lab and backed by a patent, has been benchmarked at over 97,000 transactions per second with zero transaction loss under stress tests.

“We believe settlement is the core competency of the network,” Burt said. “Institutions need to know that once a block is created, there are no rollbacks, and that each transaction executes in the right sequence.”

Both speakers highlighted Redbelly’s zkIdentity system as another key piece. Rather than duplicating KYC and eligibility checks at every venue, users receive verifiable credentials that prove, in zero-knowledge, that they meet requirements for a given product or jurisdiction. Eligibility is checked at the network layer, while underlying data remains private and issuers still operate within their licences.

For AMAL/IQ-EQ, this addresses a structural compliance problem. Andersen noted: “zkIdentity lets us verify eligibility at the network layer without exposing private data, which enables regulated markets to operate on public rails while keeping controls and safeguards in place.”

The partnership between Redbelly and AMAL/IQ-EQ combines this technical foundation with existing licences, balance sheet strength and established transaction flows. AMAL Trustees brings the fiduciary role, legal enforceability and reporting obligations; Redbelly provides the shared ledger, deterministic settlement and identity layer. Together, they position tokenization as an upgrade to the way asset lifecycles are managed and funded.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main problem that tokenization and deterministic finality aim to solve for institutional asset management?

AThey aim to solve the problems of delays, blind spots, and operational risk caused by routing trillions in assets through spreadsheets, email-based confirmations, and manual monthly reconciliations.

QAccording to the AMA, how has the perception of tokenization changed at institutions like AMAL and IQ-EQ?

ATokenization has shifted from being treated as a moonshot experiment to a strategic infrastructure upgrade that is now a board-level agenda, with C-suite and board committees actively exploring it.

QWhat was the goal of Project Acacia, the pilot project with the Reserve Bank of Australia?

AThe goal was to demonstrate how tokenized assets and a wholesale CBDC can simplify the issuance, servicing, reporting, and secondary trading of a smart asset-backed security (ABS) on a shared infrastructure.

QWhat are two key technical features of the Redbelly Network that make it suitable for institutional use?

ATwo key features are its deterministic consensus mechanism, which provides irreversible settlement and removes fork risk, and its zkIdentity system, which allows for verifiable eligibility checks without exposing private user data.

QHow does the partnership between Redbelly Network and AMAL/IQ-EQ combine their respective strengths?

AThe partnership combines Redbelly's technical foundation (shared ledger, deterministic settlement, identity layer) with AMAL/IQ-EQ's existing licenses, balance sheet strength, established transaction flows, fiduciary role, legal enforceability, and reporting obligations.

Letture associate

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit8 min fa

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit8 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit24 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit24 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片