I was tracing how Dusk actually finalizes blocks, because the marketing line is always "irreversible finality in seconds." Technically true. But the docs break block status into stages — Accepted, Confirmed, Stable, Final — and that's where it got interesting.

A block being "Accepted" just means it passed the current round's three consensus steps. It can still be reorganized. "Confirmed" means later blocks build on it. Only "Final" is the deterministically guaranteed, cryptographically irreversible state where blocks are finalized through explicit cryptographic attestations rather than probabilistic confirmations

So the gap isn't in the consensus design — Succinct Attestation genuinely avoids Nakamoto-style probabilistic settlement. The gap is in when a wallet, exchange, or integrator treats a block as settled. If a user or app reads "Accepted" as final, that's not a protocol flaw, it's a UX assumption riding on top of a protocol that was actually built to prevent exactly that mistake.

For regulated asset settlement, that distinction isn't cosmetic — it's the difference between a compliant clearing event and a premature one.

Still wondering how conservative integrators default here once transaction volume on $DUSK scales past a handful of provisioner committees per round.

@Dusk #DUSK