@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I realized something uncomfortable while mapping out Dusk's token economics. The protocol is designed for DUSK to capture almost none of the value it creates for institutions.

Start with what actually happens when the RWA thesis succeeds. Institutions tokenize assets on Dusk. They settle transactions. Network usage grows. But who benefits from that activity?

Gas fees are paid in DUSK, but Dusk targets sub-$0.01 per transaction. That's minimal value capture. Staking yields come from block rewards distributed on a 36-year emission schedule. The longer that schedule runs, the more diluted existing DUSK holders become.
Here's the structural problem. Dusk is designed to be indifferent to which asset settles actual financial activity. Institutions will trade tokenized securities using stablecoins, not DUSK. The network's core use case doesn't require DUSK token holdings. DUSK is infrastructure, not the asset layer.

Most L1s have flawed tokenomics, but they benefit from adoption directly. Ethereum burns fees. Solana captures MEV. Dusk created a separation where network success doesn't automatically translate into token value. Emissions schedule ensures dilution outpaces adoption returns.
My concern would be that this creates long-term sustainability issues. Early DUSK holders are funding network development through inflation. But if institutional adoption materializes, new users have no reason to hold DUSK beyond staking requirements.
Does the gap between network success and token value actually matter for long-term sustainability, or is this a problem that solves itself through protocol evolution?

$TUT
$ZRO

What's the real risk in Dusk's token economics?