Today I was reading about Stake Abstraction on @DuskFoundation and got stuck on one restriction: a smart contract can manage stake, but it can’t call the staking flow directly. My first thought was obvious: if contracts can stake, why not let them call staking directly?
Then the design started to make sense. A contract can receive DUSK, stake for depositors, and distribute or reinvest rewards under its own rules. But the funds still have to move through the Transfer Contract before reaching the Stake Contract, and the 1,000 DUSK minimum still applies.
That’s what made Stake Abstraction interesting to me. Dusk makes the staking logic programmable without making the movement of funds arbitrary. Contracts can decide how rewards work; the protocol still controls how funds enter the staking flow.
I used to think programmability simply meant giving smart contracts more control. Reading this made me notice the other side: knowing which controls not to give them matters just as much.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $COW $VELVET
Then the design started to make sense. A contract can receive DUSK, stake for depositors, and distribute or reinvest rewards under its own rules. But the funds still have to move through the Transfer Contract before reaching the Stake Contract, and the 1,000 DUSK minimum still applies.
That’s what made Stake Abstraction interesting to me. Dusk makes the staking logic programmable without making the movement of funds arbitrary. Contracts can decide how rewards work; the protocol still controls how funds enter the staking flow.
I used to think programmability simply meant giving smart contracts more control. Reading this made me notice the other side: knowing which controls not to give them matters just as much.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk $COW $VELVET