Waited on a loan number once. Sat through the credit pull — then got handed a single figure that supposedly decided everything.
Felt like pure magic at the time. Wasn't magic. It was underwriting.
That's the trick with price targets too, right?
A number gets thrown out — $0.10, whatever — and it starts feeling like prophecy instead of math.
But does a target mean anything without knowing what's underneath it?
XSC is Dusk's answer to that question — think of it like ERC-20, except built for securities instead of generic tokens. Issue digital shares, keep a legal recovery path if keys get lost. Sounds clean. Is clean actually the same as safe, though?
Piecrust runs the confidential contract layer underneath XSC. Not a footnote — the part that decides whether "private" actually holds up under load.
Honestly, still thinking about this one.
🕯️
Because it didn't always hold. Earlier this year, security researchers at osec.io flagged a critical soundness bug in dusk-plonk — the verifier wasn't checking four of the prover's polynomial commitments, a gap that could've let someone mint DUSK from nothing. Roughly $60M was sitting behind that one proof check. Dusk shipped a fix. Not the first PLONK scare either — Trail of Bits caught a Frozen Heart vulnerability in the same library back in 2022.
That's not hopium. That's underwriting with a paper trail.
Does a protocol that's been broken and fixed twice earn more trust than one that's never been tested at all?
Not saying that answers whether $0.10 prints. A fixed bug isn't a promise. Neither is a target price.
But here's the question worth sitting with —
when a number does hit, is it because the underwriting actually held, or because everyone just agreed to believe the same number at the same time?
What happens to a portfolio built on the second kind once nobody's left to keep agreeing?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
Not financial advice. DYOR.
Felt like pure magic at the time. Wasn't magic. It was underwriting.
That's the trick with price targets too, right?
A number gets thrown out — $0.10, whatever — and it starts feeling like prophecy instead of math.
But does a target mean anything without knowing what's underneath it?
XSC is Dusk's answer to that question — think of it like ERC-20, except built for securities instead of generic tokens. Issue digital shares, keep a legal recovery path if keys get lost. Sounds clean. Is clean actually the same as safe, though?
Piecrust runs the confidential contract layer underneath XSC. Not a footnote — the part that decides whether "private" actually holds up under load.
Honestly, still thinking about this one.
🕯️
Because it didn't always hold. Earlier this year, security researchers at osec.io flagged a critical soundness bug in dusk-plonk — the verifier wasn't checking four of the prover's polynomial commitments, a gap that could've let someone mint DUSK from nothing. Roughly $60M was sitting behind that one proof check. Dusk shipped a fix. Not the first PLONK scare either — Trail of Bits caught a Frozen Heart vulnerability in the same library back in 2022.
That's not hopium. That's underwriting with a paper trail.
Does a protocol that's been broken and fixed twice earn more trust than one that's never been tested at all?
Not saying that answers whether $0.10 prints. A fixed bug isn't a promise. Neither is a target price.
But here's the question worth sitting with —
when a number does hit, is it because the underwriting actually held, or because everyone just agreed to believe the same number at the same time?
What happens to a portfolio built on the second kind once nobody's left to keep agreeing?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
Not financial advice. DYOR.