I was digging into Dusk's consensus docs today — Succinct Attestation, committee-based PoS, 64 provisioners per committee, 67% threshold to finalize.
Pulled up the whitepaper instead of the marketing.
Deterministic sortition selects provisioners for consensus duties, unpredictable composition. Hold up — that's not how most committee chains operate.

What actually stopped me though was the security angle. Static committees let you map voting power and plan attacks.
Dusk's design is made to make committee assignment less predictable.

Not calling SA broken here — deterministic finality in seconds is real. But it's a clean split I hadn't clocked: randomness reduces predictable control, yet it also means committee members rotate before any long-term reputation forms. Snack's gone, still chewing on this one.

Does rotating committees make the network harder to attack, or just harder to trust?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
$SNXXB
$EDEN