it sounds the same to me as well

Exactly my first thought as well... I actually really like the way Stephane and Mark think but why is a blockchain necessary for this??

If I understand correctly a token cannot be that, or it becomes an equity. In other words tokens must be tied to income statement not balance sheet assets liabilities.

Same thought here....I heard him talking and failed to understand why..the security token discussion was interesting and compelling but unless I am missing something (entirely possible :-) the bites thing is a solution looking for a problem.

For land in the 3rd world, maybe tokenization contributes a solution to the dual "title chain" problem and the hypothecation problem, land reform finally unleashing the 3rd world from feudalism. not sure. tokenization may make ready sense for "non-rival goods" (IP)... copyrights, patents, both for finance (input) and output (royalties). Lord knows artists have historically been willfully deprived of their royalties. The Beatles garnered. paltry royalties until they launched their own (Apple) label. I would like to see how "smart patents" were tokenized as to the unique, novel, non-obvious claims in the patent: the "four corners" of the patent.

....with some Kickstarter thrown in

with respect to athletes .. check out Spencer Dinwiddie. the "prevention" came from the NBA. said he is not allowed to "assign" his contract to a 3rd party. i believe it got worked out but other leagues may have similar issues ?

resto owner gets time value of money on upfront receipt. use could get pushed out years or maybe never used. obviously if inflation went through the roof very quickly, the owner could get whipsawed but how likely is that ? plus, i thought i heard stephane say that when its actually used, the resto owner "takes it back" and can resell it again. if inflation was way up ... he would sell it for more the next time around and start all over again.

This is a great point. In my humble opinion tokenisation can truly take off and deliver on the vision only when the underlying cashflows (be it business or any possible stream) are facilitated in full (or thereabouts) by blockchain/smart contract technology, which would allow smart contracts to take care of at least some of the issues mentioned by Paul above and remove a substantial number of links in the chain between the owner and the asset/cashflows.

What if your restaurant token paid out a share of profit and let you vote on menu items?

Putting 'time share' vacation real estate, or corporate loyalty programs on blockchains does not strike me as innovative, let alone revolutionary. Does the world really need more corporate marketing? 'Pre-sales' are not going to solve the corporate world's financial issues either. Honestly I'm surprised all of this was treated so enthusiastically here. Securitization of assets, however, is very interesting, as is the Tezos migration. I see that a 'decentralized' automated market maker (AMM) exchange was just launched on Tezos. I would be curious to hear a debate from this 'centralization' perspective on why decentralization will not eventually win out in the end, given the decentralized nature of blockchains--i.e. why a 'native' solution won't prevail, as it were.

I understand your point but token is not supposed to be an investment instrument, so that is exactly what they want to avoid, the direct connection to the business enterprise. Threshold is the mentioned Howey test... I take the liberty for a little digression but necessary. In US law Howey test is the result of 1946 US Supreme Court decision against a Florida citrus producer that leased part of its property to finance operations. Was that transaction a security? Since the purchasers "main skills were not the growth of citrus trees" SCOTUS decided that they were deemed as speculators and Howey was supposed to file with SEC. The transaction "involve investment contracts, as so defined. The respondent companies are offering something more than fee simple interests in land...they are offering an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise.". This sentence is key in the US to define what is a security and what is not. Anytime there are 4 key elements: a. the existence of a contract; b. the formation of a common enterprise; c. a promise of profits by the issuer; d. the use of a third party to promote the offering, then you are handing a security. Tokens and crytpo are "in limine" very wary not to go outside that Rumi poetic field where SEC is waiting for it. " Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about."

I felt the same way at the outset of the interview and generally am not excited about utility tokens, even as a consumer. That said, I could see the benefit in a scenario where there's a single token usable across multiple businesses (even sectors), where the consumer doesn't need to have 10+ loyalty cards to reap the majority of benefits; one of the primary reasons I don't utilize reward programs broadly is my unwillingness to track 10s of accounts and/or cards. Also, something to be said for not having to provide personal information to all these companies through their sign-ups versus just holding a token. There's likely some market premium to the token price for this and a simple, broad, and, ideally, easy user mobile interface. How much? Who knows, still very early. The rationale provided for focus on utility tokens here I think is reflective of the lack of regulatory clarity within the US; you can hear Stephane de Baets specifically mention the necessity to provide utility tokens, not security tokens, in various contexts. I absolutely agree fractional shares and ownership is what can potentially unlock significant liquidity and value in assets that are not currently liquid, not to mention providing new businesses with lower friction paths forward to capitalization. The US would do well to accelerate a regulatory framework which embraces such innovative technology, beneficial for both the government and public. Big question for the utility token plan laid out in this interview is, if a business joins such a network and accepts the token (say, as 50% of the payment for the service), what rate will they receive when they want to exchange for a stable coin or fiat in the country they operate in? Is it just market rate on ERX, for example, or will there be some fixed exchange value (discounted or premium)? Getting the incentives and market structure/economic environment right early on for both consumer and business is probably a primary challenge in getting "mass adoption". A consumer can easily see the benefit of locking up some cash to receive ~20% discounts/rewards easily across a network of businesses they frequent. However, does access to this network of people holding (Byte/Bite token?) provide a similar economic value to the business? Probably highly context-dependent on the business, but tougher to anticipate adoption, and will be interesting to see how such utility tokens are rolled out (supply, contract mechanics, extent of free market price discovery, etc.). Overall, interesting to see how different entrepreneurs are seeking to gain exposure into tokenization and enjoyed the listen!