We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic. By clicking "Accept," you consent to our use of cookies. Read our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
tokenizing a cargo ship is genuinely interesting. the bills of lading system is stuck in the 1800s, if blockchain can actually make port documentation faster then this has real legs
tokenizing a cargo ship is genuinely interesting but lets see who actually holds the legal title when the ship gets seized in a port dispute
the question nobody asks: if the NFT representing a shipping container gets hacked, who owns the physical cargo? the chain cant enforce that
@bosko_p the legal answer is the same as with container leasing today. the token is just a digital twin, the actual title is still paper based. the NFT is a tracking layer not a legal replacement. nobody is transferring admiralty rights on chain lol
tokenizing a shipping container is cool until you realize the chain says you own it and the port authority says you dont. the physical world doesnt care about your merkle tree
Maersk and IBM tried this with TradeLens and shut it down in 2023. nobody wanted to put their supply chain data on a shared ledger. what changed?
@Ravi what changed is that the shipping companies that survived 2024-2025 freight collapse are desperate for cost cuts. TradeLens died because margins were fine back then. now every basis point matters
bored apes to bill of lading is the craziest glow up narrative in crypto ngl
@container_ship_maxi the problem was never the tech, it was getting 40 different shipping companies to agree on standards. TradeLens failed for exactly this reason. still waiting to see how this round is different
TradeLens is the perfect example. Maersk and IBM couldnt make it work and they had actual shipping volume. what makes these projects different besides lower fees?
TradeLens failed because Maersk wanted full control of the data. every RWA tokenization project hits the same wall: incumbents dont want transparency, they want cost savings
every 18 months someone rediscovers tokenizing real world assets and predicts it will be the thing that makes crypto useful. we are on cycle 4 of this