Noticed something odd reading through Dusk's slashing docs — most PoS chains treat "went offline" and "tried to attack the network" as different degrees of the same crime, both punished by burning your stake. Dusk splits them into two entirely different systems, and only one of them actually takes your money
If your node misses a block or goes down, that's soft slashing — nothing gets burned. Your stake just gets a warning, then gets temporarily suspended from selection, or a portion gets shifted into your claimable rewards pool so it stops counting toward your odds of being picked. Annoying, costs you yield, but you keep your principal. Hard slashing only kicks in for actual malicious behavior — proven double-signing, conflicting block headers, the kind of thing that can't happen by accident. That's the one that burns tokens, and on Dusk's live mainnet, it's currently not even active — the network is running on soft slashing alone.
The easy way to think about it: most chains punish you the same whether your internet went out or you tried to cheat. Dusk built two separate categories on purpose, because "unreliable" and "malicious" are different problems and lumping them together just discourages honest people from running nodes at all.
DUSK is sitting around $0.0605 today, market cap near $30M, deep off its all-time high — a reminder that mechanism design like this doesn't move price on its own, it just quietly determines who's willing to stick around and validate the chain long-term.
Dusk if hard slashing does eventually activate on mainnet, does that make soft slashing look more like a grace period than a permanent policy?
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk
If your node misses a block or goes down, that's soft slashing — nothing gets burned. Your stake just gets a warning, then gets temporarily suspended from selection, or a portion gets shifted into your claimable rewards pool so it stops counting toward your odds of being picked. Annoying, costs you yield, but you keep your principal. Hard slashing only kicks in for actual malicious behavior — proven double-signing, conflicting block headers, the kind of thing that can't happen by accident. That's the one that burns tokens, and on Dusk's live mainnet, it's currently not even active — the network is running on soft slashing alone.
The easy way to think about it: most chains punish you the same whether your internet went out or you tried to cheat. Dusk built two separate categories on purpose, because "unreliable" and "malicious" are different problems and lumping them together just discourages honest people from running nodes at all.
DUSK is sitting around $0.0605 today, market cap near $30M, deep off its all-time high — a reminder that mechanism design like this doesn't move price on its own, it just quietly determines who's willing to stick around and validate the chain long-term.
Dusk if hard slashing does eventually activate on mainnet, does that make soft slashing look more like a grace period than a permanent policy?
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk