Hidden Economics of Asset Tokenization: What It Actually Costs to Bring $100 Million in Assets On-Chain

Tokenizing $100 million in assets is a technical milestone. Making the infrastructure commercially viable is an entirely different challenge.

Imagine an investment firm preparing to tokenize $100 million in real estate, private credit, or other financial assets.

The business case looks promising. Blockchain-based ownership records could simplify transfers, fractional ownership could expand investor participation, and automated processes could reduce administrative work.

But the firm faces a question that rarely appears in tokenization market forecasts:

How much money must the business spend before its first token generates meaningful revenue?

The answer extends far beyond smart contract development.

Legal structuring, asset verification, investor onboarding, custody arrangements, compliance systems, and ongoing administration all contribute to the economics of tokenization.

And these costs do not necessarily decline simply because assets are represented digitally.

According to McKinsey’s research on tokenized financial assets, the market could reach approximately $2 trillion by 2030, excluding cryptocurrencies and stablecoins. Its optimistic scenario approaches $4 trillion.

Yet the same research highlights an important obstacle: implementing tokenization infrastructure can require substantial investment before the anticipated efficiencies become commercially meaningful.

For businesses entering this market, the central question is no longer whether assets can be tokenized.

It is whether the financial benefits justify the infrastructure required to tokenize them.

$100 Million in Tokenized Assets Is Not $100 Million in Revenue

One of the most important distinctions in tokenization economics is the difference between asset value and business income.

Consider a platform that successfully issues digital tokens representing $100 million in underlying assets.

That figure might represent assets issued, assets administered, or assets currently held through the platform.

It does not represent revenue earned by the platform operator.

Revenue depends on the commercial arrangement.

A platform might charge asset issuers for token creation, collect recurring administration fees, license infrastructure to institutions, or earn transaction fees where legally permitted.

For example, a hypothetical 0.50% annual administration fee on $100 million in fee-bearing assets would generate $500,000 in gross annual revenue.

That sounds attractive until the operating costs enter the calculation.

The platform may still need to pay for regulatory compliance, custody services, infrastructure maintenance, security assessments, investor support, and asset servicing.

Moreover, a platform might tokenize $100 million over several years without ever maintaining $100 million in active fee-bearing assets.

Tokenized asset value measures the scale of assets represented. Revenue measures the commercial value the platform captures.

Confusing the two can lead businesses to overestimate their potential returns before development begins.

The Six Expenses Behind a $100 Million Tokenization Project

To understand the economics, consider a hypothetical financial services company launching a custom platform to support $100 million in tokenized assets.

Assume the company already has access to suitable assets and intends to serve professional or otherwise eligible investors.

The following model illustrates one possible initial budget.

The important observation is not the $500,000 total.

It is how the money is distributed.

1. Platform Development: $180,000

A production-ready tokenization platform requires more than a mechanism for creating blockchain tokens.

Depending on the business model, it may need investor dashboards, asset issuance workflows, ownership records, subscription management, payment integrations, reporting tools, and administrative controls.

For companies evaluating Asset Tokenization Platform Development, the critical budgeting decision is determining which capabilities must be developed internally and which can be integrated through existing infrastructure providers.

Custom development offers greater control over workflows and future functionality, but it also creates ongoing maintenance responsibilities.

A lower initial software budget is not necessarily cheaper if the platform later requires expensive architectural changes.

2. Legal Structuring and Regulatory Preparation: $120,000

Representing an asset on a blockchain does not automatically establish legally enforceable ownership.

The business must determine what the token represents.

Does it convey direct ownership, an interest in a legal entity, a debt claim, or contractual rights against an issuer?

Each structure can introduce different legal, disclosure, investor eligibility, and transfer requirements.

Depending on the jurisdiction and offering structure, businesses may need legal opinions, offering documentation, regulatory advice, entity formation, and agreements with regulated intermediaries.

Some structures may also require licenses or authorization before operations begin.

These obligations cannot be eliminated through software automation.

3. Smart Contract Development and Security Audits: $65,000

Smart contracts can automate token issuance, transfers, restrictions, and selected asset-related operations.

But automation introduces another category of financial risk.

A poorly designed contract could allow unauthorized transfers, incorrectly enforce ownership restrictions, or create vulnerabilities affecting investor assets.

Security testing and independent audits therefore deserve their own budget.

Audit costs also depend on the number of contracts, their complexity, the maturity of the underlying code, and the extent of remediation required.

Importantly, a completed audit does not guarantee that a system is free from vulnerabilities.

4. Asset Verification and Onboarding: $45,000

Before tokenization, the underlying asset must be verified.

For real estate, this may involve ownership documentation, title review, valuation, and property-related due diligence.

Private credit assets may require loan documentation, borrower information, collateral assessment, and servicing arrangements.

Tokenization does not remove the need to establish that an asset exists, belongs to the relevant party, and supports the rights being offered.

The blockchain records the digital representation.

It does not independently verify every claim made about the underlying asset.

5. Custody and Security Infrastructure: $40,000

Businesses must decide how digital assets and signing credentials will be controlled.

Possible arrangements include institutional custody providers, multisignature authorization systems, and multiparty computation infrastructure.

The appropriate approach depends on legal obligations, the operating model, and the parties responsible for safeguarding assets.

Integrating custody also introduces expenses related to access controls, transaction approvals, key recovery procedures, and operational monitoring.

6. Testing and Operational Readiness: $50,000

A tokenization platform can function successfully in a demonstration environment while remaining unprepared for real investors.

Production testing should examine investor onboarding, transaction failures, restricted transfers, corporate actions, reconciliation, reporting, and recovery procedures.

These workflows become especially important when blockchain records must remain consistent with legally authoritative off-chain records.

Launching the software is only one part of launching the business.

The Expense That Changes Everything: Running the Platform After Launch

Initial development expenditure receives considerable attention.

Recurring operational expenditure deserves just as much.

Consider an illustrative annual operating budget for the same platform.

Under these assumptions, the business would commit approximately $750,000 across its initial investment and first year of operations.

This excludes financing costs, taxes, asset acquisition costs, major unforeseen expenses, and other items that may apply to a particular business.

The first-year cash requirement could therefore be materially higher.

A company focusing exclusively on development costs may underestimate the capital needed to reach sustainable operations.

This problem is particularly significant when a platform must maintain both blockchain-based and conventional financial records.

In its analysis of tokenization adoption, McKinsey identifies the expense of operating traditional and digital processes simultaneously as a barrier to achieving near-term economic benefits.

Tokenization can create efficiency.

But during implementation, it can also temporarily increase operational complexity.

The Break-Even Calculation Most Tokenization Business Plans Need

Now consider the commercial consequences of the financial model.

The platform has:

• $500,000 in initial investment.
• $250,000 in annual operating expenses.
• $100 million in fee-bearing assets.
• A hypothetical 0.50% annual administration fee.

Its annual gross revenue would be:

$100 million × 0.50% = $500,000

After deducting $250,000 in annual operating expenses, the business would retain $250,000 before taxes, financing costs, and other excluded expenses.

If the full $100 million remains fee-bearing, all revenue is collected, and annual expenses remain constant, recovering the $500,000 initial investment would take approximately two years.

But consider what happens when the assumptions change.

Under this simplified model, the platform needs approximately $50 million in fee-bearing assets merely to cover its assumed annual operating expenses.

It must generate additional surplus to recover development costs.

And that calculation assumes every dollar of the relevant asset base generates the same fee.

In reality, fee discounts, onboarding delays, client departures, and changing asset values could materially affect revenue.

The financial viability of a tokenization platform depends less on how many tokens it can issue than on how consistently it can generate revenue from the assets and services it supports.

Where Tokenization Can Actually Produce Financial Savings

Tokenization is frequently associated with lower transaction costs and faster settlement.

Those benefits are possible, but they are not automatic.

The Bank for International Settlements’ 2025 Annual Economic Report explains how programmable financial infrastructure could combine activities such as messaging, reconciliation, and settlement.

The potential economic advantage comes from reducing duplicated processes and coordinating transactions more efficiently.

For businesses, three areas deserve particular attention.

Administrative automation: Automated ownership updates, distribution calculations, and transfer restrictions may reduce manual processing requirements.

Reconciliation efficiency: Shared transaction records may reduce the need for separate parties to repeatedly compare inconsistent information.

Settlement coordination: Where appropriate payment and asset infrastructure exists, programmable settlement arrangements may reduce delays and counterparty exposure.

However, businesses should measure these benefits against their existing processes.

If a company already operates an efficient, low-cost administrative system, replacing it with blockchain infrastructure may not immediately generate meaningful savings.

Likewise, faster on-chain transfers do not automatically resolve legal settlement requirements or eliminate traditional asset-servicing responsibilities.

The relevant metric is not the theoretical speed of the blockchain.

It is the reduction in the total cost of completing a legally valid financial transaction.

The $100 Million Question: Build, License, or Outsource?

Once the economic model is established, businesses face another decision.

Should they develop their own tokenization infrastructure, license an existing platform, or outsource selected operations?

Each approach changes the relationship between upfront expenditure, recurring costs, and operational control.

A company planning a limited issuance may find that custom infrastructure creates unnecessary financial exposure.

An institution expecting repeated issuances across several asset classes may place greater value on controlling its own technology and integrations.

For organizations evaluating an RWA Asset Tokenization Platform Development Company, the more useful comparison is therefore not simply development cost versus licensing cost.

It is the total cost of ownership over three to five years, including integration, compliance, maintenance, vendor charges, and the financial consequences of changing providers.

That calculation can reveal whether an initially inexpensive solution remains economical as the business expands.

What the Market Data Reveals — and What It Doesn’t

The tokenized asset market is growing, but aggregate market figures require careful interpretation.

As of October 11, 2026, RWA.xyz’s platform dashboard reported approximately $39.22 billion in distributed asset value and $357.50 billion in represented asset value.

These figures describe different categories of asset representation and should not be combined as though they measure the same thing.

They also do not reveal how much revenue tokenization infrastructure providers earn.

Nor do they establish that every tokenized asset has an active secondary market.

A tokenization platform can administer substantial asset value while generating relatively little transaction activity.

That matters because some business models depend on recurring administration fees, while others rely more heavily on issuance volume or trading-related revenue.

The same $100 million asset portfolio could therefore produce very different financial outcomes depending on how the platform earns money.

Businesses should evaluate market growth alongside customer demand, asset turnover, fee structures, and operating expenses.

Market size can demonstrate opportunity.

It cannot establish the profitability of an individual business.

Five Questions Worth Answering Before Committing Capital

The financial analysis leads to five questions that deserve answers before a tokenization project receives its development budget.

1. What specific cost or market limitation will tokenization solve?

A credible business case should identify measurable improvements rather than relying on blockchain adoption as an objective.

2. How much of the underlying asset value will actually generate revenue?

Total issued asset value and fee-bearing assets may differ substantially.

3. Which operational responsibilities will remain outside the blockchain?

Legal administration, custody, reporting, investor verification, and asset servicing may continue to require specialized providers.

4. What happens if adoption reaches only 25% of the original forecast?

A viable financial model should survive slower onboarding, lower issuance volumes, and higher operating expenses.

5. At what scale does the platform become economically sustainable?

This requires calculating the minimum revenue needed to cover recurring costs and eventually recover the initial investment.

These questions do not guarantee commercial success.

They help prevent a technically successful project from becoming an economically unsustainable one.

The Real Economics Begin After the First Token Is Issued

Bringing $100 million in assets on-chain can be an important technological achievement.

But it does not automatically create a profitable platform, eliminate traditional financial obligations, or produce liquid markets.

The financial outcome depends on how effectively the business converts its infrastructure investment into recurring revenue, operational savings, or measurable strategic advantages.

Under the illustrative model explored here, a $500,000 initial investment and $250,000 in annual operating expenses create a meaningful financial commitment before the platform achieves scale.

Different assumptions could produce dramatically different results.

That is precisely why tokenization projects should begin with financial modeling rather than technology selection.

The businesses most likely to benefit from tokenization will not necessarily be those that issue the greatest number of tokens. They will be those that understand the economics of issuing, managing, and servicing those tokens over time.

The most important question is not simply what it costs to put $100 million on-chain.

It is what the business must earn — or save — to make that investment worthwhile.

Turning Tokenization Economics Into Production-Ready Infrastructure

Understanding the economics of asset tokenization is only the first step. Translating those financial assumptions into a secure, scalable platform requires an architecture that supports the business model from issuance through ongoing asset administration.

Softean develops custom RWA asset tokenization platforms for businesses, asset managers, and financial institutions seeking to digitize real-world and financial assets. Our development capabilities span token issuance, investor onboarding, smart contract integration, compliance-enabled workflows, ownership management, custody connectivity, and asset administration.

Rather than approaching tokenization as a standalone blockchain implementation, we focus on building infrastructure around each client’s asset structure, operational requirements, and long-term platform objectives.

Whether a business is preparing its first tokenized offering or planning a multi-asset tokenization ecosystem, Softean helps translate its requirements into a practical development roadmap.

Planning an asset tokenization platform? Explore Softean’s development capabilities and discuss the infrastructure your business needs to bring tokenized assets to market.

Hidden Economics of Asset Tokenization: What It Actually Costs to Bring $100 Million in Assets… was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

TL;DR: KoreInside and Digital Motion have formed a partnership designed to help issuers move regulated tokenized securities onto public blockchains including Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche and Base. The collaboration combines securities compliance infrastructure with the technical systems needed to deploy and operate assets on-chain.

Putting a security on a blockchain is the easy part.

Keeping all of the rules attached to that security intact after it gets there is considerably harder.

KoreInside and Digital Motion have announced a partnership aimed at solving that second problem.

KoreInside provides infrastructure around regulated securities, including investor eligibility and ownership requirements.

Digital Motion will provide the technical Web3 layer needed to deploy and operate those securities across public blockchain networks.

The collaboration is expected to support deployments on networks including Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche and Base.

For Solana projects, Digital Motion plans to use its SPL-4133 security-token standard as part of the technical framework.

The distinction between a normal crypto token and a tokenized security is central to the partnership.

A conventional token can generally be sent from one wallet to another with little concern over who the recipient is.

A regulated security may carry restrictions around investor accreditation, jurisdiction, ownership records and transfer eligibility.

Those restrictions do not disappear simply because ownership is represented by a blockchain token.

If tokenization is going to expand into conventional capital markets, the compliance system and the blockchain system therefore have to remain connected.

That is the gap KoreInside and Digital Motion are trying to bridge.

Digital Motion will work as a tokenization logistics provider for issuers using KoreInside’s infrastructure, helping assess blockchain architecture and coordinate how a token behaves once deployed.

The companies say the combination creates a more direct path from compliant issuance into public Web3 networks.

It also reflects an important shift in the real-world asset sector.

Early tokenization projects often focused on proving that an asset could technically be represented on-chain.

The market is now tackling the less glamorous operational questions that determine whether those assets can scale.

Who can own the token?

How are transfer restrictions enforced?

What happens when an investor becomes ineligible?

How does a blockchain transaction remain synchronized with the legal ownership record?

Those questions are where tokenized securities become financial infrastructure rather than blockchain demonstrations.

Ethereum and Solana may compete fiercely for activity, but regulated asset issuers have a different priority.

They need the token to remain a security no matter which chain it sits on.

Minting a tokenized asset is often presented as the finish line. It is not. For a tokenized real-world asset (RWA), minting only creates the on-chain representation of an underlying asset. The harder engineering work begins afterward: keeping ownership accurate, enforcing transfer rules, managing investor permissions, processing corporate actions, updating asset data, and eventually redeeming or retiring the token.

This makes tokenized asset lifecycle management less about creating tokens and more about maintaining a reliable connection between the token, its owner, its underlying asset, and the rules governing that asset. For crypto founders building RWA platforms, understanding this lifecycle is critical. A token can be technically valid on-chain while still becoming operationally useless if the systems behind it cannot manage what happens after issuance.

1. Minting Is Only the Beginning

When an asset is tokenized, the platform typically performs several steps before minting,

• Asset verification
• Legal ownership validation
• Investor onboarding and KYC
• Token metadata creation
• Smart contract deployment or configuration
• Token minting
• Allocation to eligible investors

After minting, however, the system enters an ongoing lifecycle. A simplified flow looks like this:

Each stage introduces different technical and business requirements.

2. The Token Must Stay Connected to the Real Asset

The biggest challenge in RWA infrastructure is maintaining the relationship between an on-chain token and an off-chain asset. Consider a token representing a $1 million commercial property. The blockchain can record:

Token ID: PROP-001

Supply: 10,000

Owner: Wallet A

But it does not inherently know:

• Who legally owns the property
• Whether the property has been sold
• Its latest valuation
• Whether rental income has been distributed
• Whether the underlying legal entity still exists
• Whether the token holder remains eligible

This requires an off-chain asset registry or legal ownership layer. A robust architecture therefore separates:

On-chain state

Contains information such as:

• Token ownership
• Transfer history
• Token supply
• Transfer restrictions
• Smart contract permissions
• Transaction records

Off-chain state

Contains information such as:

• Legal documentation
• Asset valuation
• Custodian records
• KYC/AML status
• Financial statements
• Property or securities data
• Corporate events

The two layers must remain synchronized.

3. Ownership Management Becomes a Continuous Process

Once tokens are minted, ownership can change. A compliant tokenization platform cannot simply allow unrestricted wallet-to-wallet transfers like a conventional cryptocurrency. For regulated assets, a transfer may need to pass through several checks:

    
   Transfer Request
          ↓
Wallet Eligibility Check
          ↓
    KYC / AML Status
          ↓
   Jurisdiction Check
          ↓
Holding / Transfer Limits
          ↓
Smart Contract Validation
          ↓
    Token Transfer
          ↓
Ownership Record Update

The smart contract can enforce some of these rules directly. For example, a permissioned token contract can maintain an allowlist of approved addresses:

if recipient ∈ approved_addresses:

execute transfer

else:

reject transfer

More complex platforms may combine on-chain restrictions with an off-chain compliance engine. This creates an important design principle: compliance should not depend entirely on a backend database if the asset requires immutable enforcement. Critical restrictions should be enforceable at the token layer wherever appropriate.

4. Asset Data Must Continue to Evolve

A token does not represent a static asset forever. Its underlying asset may change in value, status, ownership structure, or financial performance. For example, a tokenized bond may require updates for:

• Interest payments
• Maturity date
• Credit events
• Principal repayment

A tokenized property may require:

• Updated valuation
• Rental income
• Property expenses
• Ownership changes

This introduces the need for trusted data feeds.

The Oracle Problem

Blockchains cannot directly access external databases or real-world events. An oracle layer can provide verified information to smart contracts. For example:

Property Valuation Provider
          ↓
Oracle / Data Verification
          ↓
      Blockchain
          ↓
Tokenized Asset Contract

The challenge is not simply getting data on-chain. It is determining whether that data is trustworthy. For high-value assets, platforms may require multiple data sources, signed data, validation rules, and fallback mechanisms rather than trusting a single API.

5. Corporate Actions Must Become Programmable

One of the most important post-minting requirements is handling corporate actions. A tokenized financial asset may generate events such as:

• Dividends
• Interest payments
• Redemptions
• Splits
• Maturity
• Buybacks
• Distributions

Suppose 10,000 tokens represent shares in an asset that generates $50,000 in distributable income. The platform needs to determine:

1. Who held the tokens at the record date?
2. How many tokens did each investor hold?
3. Is each investor eligible?
4. How much should each investor receive?
5. Has the payment been completed?

A distribution engine can calculate the entitlement:

Investor Payout = Eligible Token Balance × Distribution Rate

The result can then be settled through stablecoins, bank rails, or another approved payment mechanism. This is where tokenization starts creating genuine operational efficiency: ownership records and financial entitlements can become machine-readable.

6. Transfers Need Settlement Finality

Token transfer does not always mean economic settlement is complete. For example:

        Buyer
          ↓
       Payment
          ↓
   Settlement Engine
          ↓
    Token Transfer
          ↓
Ownership Confirmation

Atomic delivery-versus-payment (DvP) mechanisms can coordinate the movement of money and assets so that one side does not compete without the other. This reduces counterparty risk. For tokenized securities and institutional assets, DvP becomes particularly important because simply transferring tokens between wallets does not guarantee that the corresponding payment has been settled.

7. The Lifecycle Ends With Redemption or Burn

Eventually, the underlying asset may mature, be sold, redeemed, or otherwise cease to exist. The token must reflect that event. A typical redemption flow is:

   Redemption Request
          ↓
Eligibility Verification
          ↓
   Asset Settlement
          ↓
   Investor Payment
          ↓
     Token Burn
          ↓
   Supply Updated 

Burning removes the token from circulation. This prevents the blockchain from continuing to represent an asset that has already been redeemed or retired. For platforms supporting multiple asset types, lifecycle states can therefore be modeled explicitly:

  MINTED
    ↓
  ACTIVE
    ↓
TRANSFERABLE
    ↓
REDEEMABLE
    ↓
 REDEEMED
    ↓
 BURNED

The exact state machine depends on the asset and regulatory structure.

8. Build the Lifecycle as a State Machine

The biggest architectural mistake is treating tokenization as a single smart contract. A production-grade platform is closer to a coordinated system of components:

Each component handles a different part of the asset lifecycle. This separation makes the system easier to audit, upgrade, and integrate with institutional infrastructure.

9. What Good RWA Infrastructure Actually Solves

The value of tokenization is not simply putting an asset on a blockchain. The real opportunity is creating a programmable lifecycle around that asset. A mature tokenized asset platform should be able to answer, at any point:

• What does this token represent?
• Who legally owns the underlying asset?
• Who currently holds the token?
• Can the token be transferred?
• Is the recipient eligible?
• What is the asset currently worth?
• What distributions are owed?
• Has settlement occurred?
• Can the asset be redeemed?
• What happens to the token afterward?

If those questions cannot be answered reliably, minting the token has solved only a small part of the problem.

Conclusion

Token minting creates the on-chain representation of an asset. Lifecycle management makes that representation operational. For B2B crypto platforms, the strongest architecture is therefore not the one with the most sophisticated minting contract. It is the one that reliably coordinates ownership, compliance, asset data, transfers, settlement, corporate actions, and redemption throughout the asset’s entire existence.

The future of tokenized assets will depend less on creating more tokens and more on building infrastructure capable of managing what happens to them after they are created. A reliable token development company can help entrepreneurs and founders desiring to create their own tokens.

Tokenized Asset Lifecycle Management: What Happens After the Token Is Minted? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

TL;DR

• Bybit and Franklin Templeton have launched an off-exchange collateral program for eligible institutional clients.
• Tokenized money-market fund shares issued through Franklin Templeton’s Benji platform can be pledged while clients trade on Bybit.
• The structure lets institutions keep collateral in regulated custody rather than moving the assets directly onto the exchange.

Bybit is giving institutional traders a way to use tokenized fund shares as collateral without depositing those assets directly onto the exchange.

The crypto platform announced a strategic collaboration with Franklin Templeton on September 28, starting with an off-exchange collateral program built around tokenized money-market fund shares issued through Franklin Templeton’s Benji platform.

Collateral Can Stay Outside The Exchange

The structure is aimed at eligible institutional clients.

Rather than transferring all of their collateral into an exchange account, participants can hold qualifying tokenized fund shares through the supported custody structure and pledge them against trading activity on Bybit.

That is important for large investors.

Keeping assets off an exchange can reduce counterparty exposure and allow collateral to continue generating the yield associated with the underlying money-market fund.

Bybit gains access to the collateral value without needing the institution to turn the entire position into cash or stablecoins first.

Franklin Templeton’s Benji platform provides the blockchain-integrated recordkeeping and transfer infrastructure for the tokenized fund shares.

Tokenized Funds Are Becoming Trading Infrastructure

Tokenized money-market funds initially attracted attention as a way to hold Treasury-like assets onchain.

Their next use may be more consequential.

They can become collateral.

A fund share that earns yield while sitting idle is useful.

A fund share that can simultaneously support a trading position becomes part of market infrastructure.

That is the direction several crypto and traditional-finance companies are now pursuing.

The Bybit integration also shows why off-exchange collateral has become increasingly important after a series of large exchange failures and security incidents.

Institutional traders want access to liquidity and derivatives markets.

They do not necessarily want every dollar of collateral sitting inside the trading venue itself.

Separating custody from execution can reduce that concentration of risk.

The collaboration extends beyond the initial collateral program.

Bybit and Franklin Templeton say they also plan to explore additional tokenized investment and yield products for wallet-based users.

Those future products should not be confused with what is live today.

The concrete first step is narrower and more institutional.

Eligible clients can use tokenized money-market fund shares as off-exchange collateral while trading on Bybit.

That turns tokenization from something investors merely hold into something they can actively finance against.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.