Subject: Research Observation: A Proposal to Publish a Unified Whitepaper to Improve Narrative Coherence and External Understanding of Centrifuge

Community
1

Subject: Research Observation: A Proposal to Publish a Unified Whitepaper to Improve Narrative Coherence and External Understanding of Centrifuge

As an external researcher and long-term observer, while systematically reviewing Centrifuge’s products and roadmap, I have repeatedly arrived at a subjective but consistent impression:
the current external narrative is relatively fragmented, making it easy for new users and institutional observers to frame Centrifuge using inappropriate mental models.
Below are my observations and suggestions, offered for the team’s reference and discussion.

In my process of understanding Centrifuge, one persistent issue has been that concepts such as Proof-of-Index, Centrifuge V3, and the Centrifuge Whitelabel solution exist side by side, but are not clearly woven into a single coherent architectural or strategic story.

As a result, when people encounter “fully licensed” issuance platforms like Securitize, they often instinctively conclude that
Securitize is the “proper” solution and that Centrifuge is structurally less competitive.

In my view, however, this framing itself is somewhat misleading.
In reality, Centrifuge and Securitize have chosen two fundamentally different paths, and they are not direct competitors in a strict sense:

  • Securitize follows a fully licensed, vertically integrated, issuer-platform model

  • Centrifuge follows a protocol-layer, modular-compliance, neutral-infrastructure model

As I gradually came to understand Centrifuge’s core positioning, I reached the opposite conclusion:
Centrifuge is fundamentally a protocol layer focused on flexibility, composability, and extensibility.
From this perspective, it does not need to pursue a full-license, vertically integrated model in order to be competitive.
Its strength lies precisely in not hard-coding regulatory and operational assumptions into the base layer, but instead allowing them to be layered on by partners in a modular way.

The problem is that this critical insight usually only emerges after substantial independent research.
For most new users or institutional observers, the current communication structure makes it far too easy to mis-benchmark Centrifuge against Securitize,
and then conclude that “Centrifuge is less compliant,”
instead of realizing that the two projects differ fundamentally in product form, target users, and technical mission.

Based on these observations, I believe Centrifuge might consider publishing a unified whitepaper or architectural overview document as a canonical narrative entry point, in order to:

  • Use a single, unified panoramic architecture and narrative document to consolidate — including but not limited to Proof-of-Index, V3, and Whitelabel — the full set of core modules, product capabilities, compliance/issuance collaboration models, and key roadmap elements into one traceable “assembly diagram.”

  • Explain the “protocol-first” philosophy and how it fundamentally differs from a fully licensed platform model

  • Clarify why modular compliance should be viewed as a feature, not a bug

  • Illustrate how partners can layer regulated issuance, transfer agency, custody, and compliance modules on top of the base protocol

  • Articulate the long-term vision of Centrifuge as a neutral financial infrastructure layer for tokenized real-world assets (RWA)

In my view, such a whitepaper would bring at least two practical improvements:

  1. Significantly reduce onboarding friction for both crypto-native users and traditional institutions

  2. Prevent Centrifuge from being evaluated against vertically integrated competitors using the wrong benchmark criteria

1 Like
2

The reason I raise this question is that I have observed a real-world signal: the “visible downstream products/adoption cases” in the Centrifuge ecosystem still seem relatively few. A reasonable explanation may not be that the value proposition is not strong enough, but that many potential partners and observers have not formed the correct mental model at the first touchpoint — especially when the two concepts “protocol-layer infrastructure” and “fully licensed issuer platform” are discussed or compared side by side, which makes misclassification and mis-benchmarking more likely.

In other words, they may not be rejecting Centrifuge because they don’t need it, but rather they categorized you early using the wrong yardstick, and then dropped off before entering a 1:1 conversation. This also explains why you have not heard explicit “confusion” feedback from prospects already in conversation: the confusion is more likely happening “before the conversation” and showing up as “silent drop-off.”

I’m not opposing a “website-first” tactic, but emphasizing a possibility that needs to be validated: both the website and a whitepaper (or a concise PDF overview) are important. Because in, “passing a PDF around internally” is often just as critical as “sharing a web link” — especially since you are facing a global market, where cross-region and cross-team communication relies more on forwardable and citable documents.

I think of the ETH vs EOS rivalry back then: short-term outcomes are not always determined by “who has the stronger technical narrative,” but rather by who can achieve broader understanding and adoption with lower cognitive friction.