Who actually retains control over token contracts once Dusk and NPEX integrate with Chainlink's cross chain infrastructure is worth mapping precisely.
Per the documentation Dusk and NPEX keep full ownership of their own token contracts throughout programmatic controls like rate limits and upgrade paths built directly in not surrendered to Chainlink's infrastructure as a condition of using it.
Can Chainlink's CCIP itself alter how the DUSK token behaves or override the rate limits Dusk set? Nothing in the documentation suggests that CCIP handles the cross chain messaging and settlement mechanics specifically while contract level control stays with the issuer.
Where the real power sits: with Dusk and NPEX at the contract level with Chainlink at the transport and messaging level connecting chains together. Two different layers of control not one party holding both.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
$CYS
#dusk $PRL
Who controls what?
Per the documentation Dusk and NPEX keep full ownership of their own token contracts throughout programmatic controls like rate limits and upgrade paths built directly in not surrendered to Chainlink's infrastructure as a condition of using it.
Can Chainlink's CCIP itself alter how the DUSK token behaves or override the rate limits Dusk set? Nothing in the documentation suggests that CCIP handles the cross chain messaging and settlement mechanics specifically while contract level control stays with the issuer.
Where the real power sits: with Dusk and NPEX at the contract level with Chainlink at the transport and messaging level connecting chains together. Two different layers of control not one party holding both.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
$CYS
#dusk $PRL
Who controls what?
Dusk & NPEX
100%
Chainlink CCIP
0%
Both, different layers
0%
Shared control
0%
2 الأصوات • تمّ إغلاق التصويت