$SOL finally crossed back above 100 after spending most of this move climbing from the low 70s. What i like here is it was not one random candle either the 12H chart has been building higher, pulling back, then pushing again.
103.08 is the obvious problem now. buyers already got rejected there once and price is sitting around 101 again.
If SOL clears that area properly, this move can get interesting very fast.
I had a friend who worked between two departments at his old job 1 side kept records the old fashioned way transaction by transaction & the other side just tracked running balances & every time something needed to move between the 2 he had to manually reconcile it himself because neither system spoke the other language, half his week went into just making the two records agree with each other. That memory came back to me when i looked closer at why @Dusk built Hedger on a hybrid UTXO & account model instead of picking one. Most chains commit to a single model early on, UTXO for granular tracking & auditability or account based for simplicity & composability, & once thats baked in the whole ecosystem has to bend around whichever one they didnt choose, real financial systems end up sitting awkwardly on top of infrastructure that only speaks one language. @Dusk approach looks different because it runs both, UTXO where that fine grained ownership tracking actually matters & account based where cross layer composability & integration with existing financial systems needs that simpler model, so the architecture doesnt force everything through the same lens. That made me think the real problem was never UTXO vs account, its that most systems assumed you had to pick a side instead of asking which parts of a financial asset life actually needed which kind of tracking. Im still not sure though, does running two models side by side actually stay clean once real volume & complex integrations start stacking on top or does maintaining both just create its own version of the reconciliation mess once things scale..?
I had a friend who moved his funds through an EVM wallet thinking he was being careful using a fresh address for every transactio but a chain analyst friend of mine pulled up his wallet in minutes & showed him how the account balance itself was the giveaway, didnt matter how many addresses he rotated through the running balance sitting on that account model told the whole story anyway. That memory came back to me when i looked closer at why @Dusk is upfront about Hedger not offering full anonymity on DuskEVM. Most chains either pretend an account based system can be made fully anonymous with enough tricks bolted on or they oversell a privacy feature without admitting what the underlying architecture actually allows, & people end up trusting a privacy guarantee that was never really there to begin with. @Dusk approach looks different because it just says it plainly the EVMs account model cant give full anonymity the way Zedger does but Hedger still delivers complete transactional privacy within what that model allows so the trade off is named instead of hidden behind marketing. That made me think the real issue was never which system is more private in isolation its that people assume one chain should give them everything & nobody tells them different models are built for different guarantees from the start. Im still not sure though is complete transactional privacy on an account based system actually enough for someone who specifically needs the anonymity level Zedger offers or does that gap just push serious privacy use elsewhere once people realize whats structurally missing..?
I had a friend who worked as a junior trader at a hedge fund & every time he wanted to place a big order he'd hesitate because the moment size or direction became visible on the book other players read it instantly & started moving before his order even filled, once he placed a large sell & watched the price slide against him before execution simply because the book gave his intent away. That memory is what came back to me when i looked closer at @Dusk obfuscated order books. With a normal order book everyone can see size, direction & depth which is exactly why institutional players end up building workarounds like iceberg orders or dark pools just to hide intent, workarounds that dont really fix the problem they just move it somewhere else in the system. @Dusk Hedger approach looks different because the order book itself stays obfuscated no one can see direction size or exposure until execution, but validity still gets enforced underneath so the trade cant be faked or manipulated even though its hidden. That made me think the real problem was never that order books are public its that visibility & manipulation have always been two sides of the same design flaw & most solutions just patch around it instead of removing it. Im still not sure though, does hiding the order actually stop manipulation at the source or does that same behavior just resurface in a different form once real institutional volume & size start testing the system properly, is privacy at the order level actually enough or does the pressure just move downstream to settlement or matching instead..? @Dusk $DUSK #dusk