I kept looking at DUSK itself today instead of jumping straight back into the privacy features, and one thing started bothering me a little.
The token has two pretty different jobs inside the network. It can be used as part of consensus participation, but it’s also the asset used to pay for computation when transactions execute. At first that sounds like a simple token-utility point. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered whether those two uses actually create demand in the same way.
Staking is about locking capital to participate in securing the network. Transaction fees are completely different. They depend on people actually doing things on-chain.
That distinction matters to me because a network can have people holding and staking an asset without having much real execution happening around it. In that situation, the token can have a clear protocol role while still not seeing the kind of usage I’d normally associate with a busy network.
And I think this is where I’m still trying to understand Dusk.
If confidential applications eventually bring more transactions onto the chain, then the computational side of DUSK’s utility becomes much more interesting to me. But if activity stays mostly tied to consensus participation, then I’m not sure staking alone tells me very much about actual ecosystem demand.
Maybe I’m looking at the token too narrowly, but I’d rather watch how much DUSK gets used for actual computation over time than just look at how much is locked in staking.
That’s the number I’m curious about now.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The token has two pretty different jobs inside the network. It can be used as part of consensus participation, but it’s also the asset used to pay for computation when transactions execute. At first that sounds like a simple token-utility point. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered whether those two uses actually create demand in the same way.
Staking is about locking capital to participate in securing the network. Transaction fees are completely different. They depend on people actually doing things on-chain.
That distinction matters to me because a network can have people holding and staking an asset without having much real execution happening around it. In that situation, the token can have a clear protocol role while still not seeing the kind of usage I’d normally associate with a busy network.
And I think this is where I’m still trying to understand Dusk.
If confidential applications eventually bring more transactions onto the chain, then the computational side of DUSK’s utility becomes much more interesting to me. But if activity stays mostly tied to consensus participation, then I’m not sure staking alone tells me very much about actual ecosystem demand.
Maybe I’m looking at the token too narrowly, but I’d rather watch how much DUSK gets used for actual computation over time than just look at how much is locked in staking.
That’s the number I’m curious about now.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk