#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I was looking through the DUSK explorer for a CreatorPad task and ended up staring at block #4,314,618, epoch 1998 longer than I expected.
The 24h numbers caught my attention.
Around 149,389 DUSK was paid out in rewards, while roughly 22,163 DUSK was burned during the same period.
That’s close to 15% of the rewards being paid out and then effectively removed from circulation.
I knew DUSK had a long-term emission schedule, with the 500M supply distributed over decades. What I hadn’t really thought about was how different that looks when you watch the burn and reward numbers moving side by side.
One side is paying participants. The other is quietly taking some of that supply back out.
I also noticed 56 failed transactions in that same 24-hour window. Not a huge number, and probably nothing unusual, but it reminded me that actual network activity is always a little messier than the clean diagrams.
I refreshed the explorer a few times and the burn ratio didn’t look like a complete one-off.
Now I’m curious whether that ~15% relationship stays relatively consistent across epochs or changes noticeably with network activity and staking participation.
That’s the kind of detail I find more interesting than the headline numbers.
@Dusk_Foundation
#dusk
$DUSK
I was looking through the DUSK explorer for a CreatorPad task and ended up staring at block #4,314,618, epoch 1998 longer than I expected.
The 24h numbers caught my attention.
Around 149,389 DUSK was paid out in rewards, while roughly 22,163 DUSK was burned during the same period.
That’s close to 15% of the rewards being paid out and then effectively removed from circulation.
I knew DUSK had a long-term emission schedule, with the 500M supply distributed over decades. What I hadn’t really thought about was how different that looks when you watch the burn and reward numbers moving side by side.
One side is paying participants. The other is quietly taking some of that supply back out.
I also noticed 56 failed transactions in that same 24-hour window. Not a huge number, and probably nothing unusual, but it reminded me that actual network activity is always a little messier than the clean diagrams.
I refreshed the explorer a few times and the burn ratio didn’t look like a complete one-off.
Now I’m curious whether that ~15% relationship stays relatively consistent across epochs or changes noticeably with network activity and staking participation.
That’s the kind of detail I find more interesting than the headline numbers.
@Dusk_Foundation
#dusk
$DUSK