Dan I think I'm following here, but could you explain why a token is preferable to selling municipal bonds?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dan I think I'm following here, but could you explain why a token is preferable to selling municipal bonds?
Great question, I'm no expert in those, I wrote this as a thought experiment.
If I had to guess, I might speculate that having an auction mechanic could allow the bonds to be sold at a more competitive price, and being on-chain fungible might create a more liquid market, again, mostly about helping price reflect willingness to invest, competitively.
Maybe bonds could be structured that way too, I mean since y requires the city to back it with water, it really is just a city loan, I'd be curious to see why municipal bonds haven't already been deployed here, maybe lack of city credit?
There's definitely a market mechanic difference between securitization and tokenization. One is backed by profit returns, the other is simply a service voucher. I think some great research could be done here on the real differences, it's tough.
For one thing, a token holder is incentivized to see the project succeed. They won't just be insured and paid out if it fails, and so there's both an alignment aspect there and a more competitive market for an investor to flip a profit.
I wonder if this would result in lower overall costs to the municipality or what. Maybe unfair to use a desperate case like Flint as a laboratory, I'm just looking for things that might help.