These are notes from work in progress, not surveys of a field from the outside. Each one goes further into a question the rest of the site raises, and each exists because we had to answer it to make something work.
Every note names the open problem it belongs to, so it can be read against the coverage map rather than in isolation. They are updated when what we know changes, and the date on each is the last time that happened.
A tokenized interest is worth exactly what the arrangement beneath it can be made to deliver.
The chain from a physical asset to a holder, link by link: the vehicle, bankruptcy remoteness, the interest, and the register. Where each link is established, what makes it fail, and why the jurisdiction of the vehicle decides whether a ledger can be the record at all.
A stablecoin leg removes the intermediaries in the middle of a payment and concentrates their obligations at the ends.
What a correspondent chain actually costs, what replacing it with a public-ledger transfer changes, and what stays exactly where it was: accounts, conversion, safeguarding and the information that must travel with a payment. Including why corridor coverage, not technology, is usually the binding constraint.
Restricted assets cannot move freely because the proof that a holder is permitted to hold them cannot move at all.
Transfer restrictions are the part of tokenization that works. The part that does not is carrying the evidence of eligibility between institutions without re-collecting the underlying documents. What would have to exist for that to change, and what can be built while it does not.
The same interest issued on more than one network will drift apart unless something reconciles it continuously.
How supply diverges across networks: bridged representations counted twice, issuance on one leg and redemption on another, and no single chain holding the whole picture. What continuous reconciliation against an attested reserve can and cannot fix.