Bitcoin Latinoamérica
8.8k Posts
Bitcoin Latinoamérica
Noticias, información, análisis y educación sobre criptomonedas, empresas, tecnología, economía y mercados financieros y tendencias que transforman la economía.
311 Following
1.3K+ Followers
6.8K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
PINNED
Verified
Your RWA can be on-chain. Your actual ownership may still be off-chain.
For a long time, I assumed “tokenization” meant an asset had genuinely moved its ownership to a blockchain: ownership, transferability and settlement handled directly through smart contracts.
But after looking at how @Dusk distinguishes tokenization from native issuance, one detail made me stop.
With a traditional tokenized bond, the underlying asset can remain in the custody of an off-chain entity. The on-chain token acts as a digital representation, but does not necessarily become the definitive legal record of ownership.
And that distinction becomes more important when something goes wrong.
If the custodian fails, the token does not magically become ownership of the underlying asset. The holder can still depend on an external legal and operational framework to enforce their claim.
There is also another layer: keeping the on-chain record synchronized with the off-chain reality requires reconciliation.
That made me realize the difference is not simply technical.
With native issuance, the goal is to create the asset directly on blockchain infrastructure under the appropriate legal framework. Transfers and settlement can then be integrated into the same system, reducing the need to reconcile an on-chain representation with a separate off-chain record.
The NPEX case makes this particularly interesting. As an AFM-supervised capital markets platform, its work around a DLT-TSS license is focused on enabling securities to be natively issued on Dusk rather than simply wrapping existing assets in tokens.
From my perspective, the real distinction comes down to where ownership lives and where the risk sits.
Maybe the right question for any RWA isn’t:
“Is it tokenized?”
It is:
“Does ownership actually exist at the protocol level, or is the token simply a claim on an asset that still exists somewhere else?”
That distinction could become more important than “tokenization” itself as capital markets move on-chain.
$DUSK #dusk
For a long time, I assumed “tokenization” meant an asset had genuinely moved its ownership to a blockchain: ownership, transferability and settlement handled directly through smart contracts.
But after looking at how @Dusk distinguishes tokenization from native issuance, one detail made me stop.
With a traditional tokenized bond, the underlying asset can remain in the custody of an off-chain entity. The on-chain token acts as a digital representation, but does not necessarily become the definitive legal record of ownership.
And that distinction becomes more important when something goes wrong.
If the custodian fails, the token does not magically become ownership of the underlying asset. The holder can still depend on an external legal and operational framework to enforce their claim.
There is also another layer: keeping the on-chain record synchronized with the off-chain reality requires reconciliation.
That made me realize the difference is not simply technical.
With native issuance, the goal is to create the asset directly on blockchain infrastructure under the appropriate legal framework. Transfers and settlement can then be integrated into the same system, reducing the need to reconcile an on-chain representation with a separate off-chain record.
The NPEX case makes this particularly interesting. As an AFM-supervised capital markets platform, its work around a DLT-TSS license is focused on enabling securities to be natively issued on Dusk rather than simply wrapping existing assets in tokens.
From my perspective, the real distinction comes down to where ownership lives and where the risk sits.
Maybe the right question for any RWA isn’t:
“Is it tokenized?”
It is:
“Does ownership actually exist at the protocol level, or is the token simply a claim on an asset that still exists somewhere else?”
That distinction could become more important than “tokenization” itself as capital markets move on-chain.
$DUSK #dusk
BREAKING NEWS: BlackRock believes allocating 1-2% to Bitcoin will improve long-term portfolio returns.
New high for performance of the 30-year U.S. bond ☠️
Those who have watched my videos carefully know that this is very bad.
The most interesting thing is that it hasn't punished the price of Bitcoin or gold.
The Fed can disguise everything it wants, but its final fate is to buy bonds.
This is good for Bitcoin ($BTC ). 🔥
Those who have watched my videos carefully know that this is very bad.
The most interesting thing is that it hasn't punished the price of Bitcoin or gold.
The Fed can disguise everything it wants, but its final fate is to buy bonds.
This is good for Bitcoin ($BTC ). 🔥
I was optimistic about cryptocurrencies when the U.S. government sold Bitcoin.
I was optimistic about cryptocurrencies when the SEC was suing every cryptocurrency company.
Today, President Trump is backing the CLARITY for Crypto Act.
The SEC and the CFTC are working on cryptocurrency legislation.
The world’s biggest institutions are building on cryptocurrencies.
I wasn’t pessimistic about cryptocurrencies during the most critical phase.
How could I be pessimistic when the best phase is about to arrive?
I was optimistic about cryptocurrencies when the SEC was suing every cryptocurrency company.
Today, President Trump is backing the CLARITY for Crypto Act.
The SEC and the CFTC are working on cryptocurrency legislation.
The world’s biggest institutions are building on cryptocurrencies.
I wasn’t pessimistic about cryptocurrencies during the most critical phase.
How could I be pessimistic when the best phase is about to arrive?
The market doesn’t reward the smartest trader—it rewards the trader who stays solvent.
Risk management isn’t a boring checklist—it’s the real edge.
Position sizing, invalidation, liquidity, and emotional discipline will keep you alive when the market turns against you.
You don’t need to win every trade—just avoid the trades that can destroy months of progress.
Survive first. Compose yourself afterwards.
Risk management isn’t a boring checklist—it’s the real edge.
Position sizing, invalidation, liquidity, and emotional discipline will keep you alive when the market turns against you.
You don’t need to win every trade—just avoid the trades that can destroy months of progress.
Survive first. Compose yourself afterwards.
🚨 THE AI BOOM HAS A MASSIVE PROBLEM NOBODY IS FACTORING INTO THEIR PRICING
OpenAI has just cut GPT-5.6 Luna by 80%, from $1 to $0.20 per million input tokens.
Anthropic launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its main model.
Pricing for leading US models has dropped nearly 25% since mid-July.
Chinese open models forced the issue.
DoorDash and Airbnb have already changed to reduce their bills, and DeepSeek V4 Flash now matches OpenAI Luna’s performance at half the cost per task.
Every AI valuation assumes these companies will eventually be able to charge enough to cover what they’re spending.
Nvidia alone has just secured $500 billion in funding for AI infrastructure.
Prices falling 80% in a month doesn’t pay for that.
And both OpenAI and Anthropic are planning IPOs with trillion-dollar valuations while doing it.
OpenAI has just cut GPT-5.6 Luna by 80%, from $1 to $0.20 per million input tokens.
Anthropic launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its main model.
Pricing for leading US models has dropped nearly 25% since mid-July.
Chinese open models forced the issue.
DoorDash and Airbnb have already changed to reduce their bills, and DeepSeek V4 Flash now matches OpenAI Luna’s performance at half the cost per task.
Every AI valuation assumes these companies will eventually be able to charge enough to cover what they’re spending.
Nvidia alone has just secured $500 billion in funding for AI infrastructure.
Prices falling 80% in a month doesn’t pay for that.
And both OpenAI and Anthropic are planning IPOs with trillion-dollar valuations while doing it.
BlackRock is selling
Fidelity is selling
Saylor is selling
Miners are selling
DATs are selling
So does $BTC s stay above $62,000?
The fund is close.
Fidelity is selling
Saylor is selling
Miners are selling
DATs are selling
So does $BTC s stay above $62,000?
The fund is close.
URGENT: A massive crisis in global food supply could begin next year due to a shortage of fertilizers, according to JPMorgan.
Unlike oil, there is no strategic reserve for fertilizers.
Unlike oil, there is no strategic reserve for fertilizers.
🚨Caution🚨
Bitcoin volatility has fallen to historic lows 🤯‼️
The next few months are going to be VERY INTERESTING 👀
Bitcoin volatility has fallen to historic lows 🤯‼️
The next few months are going to be VERY INTERESTING 👀
BREAKING NEWS: OpenAI dissolves the team tasked with assessing whether its AI models could pose “catastrophic risks,” according to the FT.
URGENT: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 According to former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, White House officials would be discussing the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in strategic meetings.
Greene said: «It’s real. I’m not speculating, I know».
Greene said: «It’s real. I’m not speculating, I know».
URGENT: OpenAI has apparently disbanded its “Preparedness” team, which was responsible for assessing catastrophic risks of its AI models.
The team’s work in biosafety and cybersecurity is being reassigned to existing groups.
The team’s work in biosafety and cybersecurity is being reassigned to existing groups.
Verified
I was reviewing the rewards distribution table for @Dusk y and there was a detail about the burn mechanism that especially caught my attention.
The block generator receives directly 70% of each block reward, plus up to an additional 10% associated with so-called certificate credits. What’s interesting is that any portion of that extra 10% that isn’t claimed is burned instead of being redistributed.
And here comes my main question: the documentation doesn’t clearly define what exactly is considered a «certificate credit». I checked again to see if there was any additional reference, but the section just mentions it and continues with the distribution.
This gap seems relevant.
A burn tied to an engagement metric that isn’t fully defined works quite differently from the programmed burns or burns activated via governance that we usually see in other projects.
The rest of the distribution is much simpler:
10% → development fund
5% → validation
5% → ratification
As for emissions, Dusk uses a 36-year decay schedule, with halvings every four years, and it also provides for up to an additional 500 million DUSK on top of the initial 500 million supply.
Against that emissions curve, the amounts burned per block may seem small.
But when we’re talking about thousands of blocks and potentially inconsistent participation in certificate credits, the accumulated magnitude starts to become a variable that deserves tracking.
I don’t think this detail changes my stance on $DUSK . But it does change something more important: which metrics I want to observe in the rewards data from now on.
The follow-up question I’d keep a close eye on is how much DUSK ends up being effectively claimed and how much ends up being removed from the supply through this mechanism.
#dusk
The block generator receives directly 70% of each block reward, plus up to an additional 10% associated with so-called certificate credits. What’s interesting is that any portion of that extra 10% that isn’t claimed is burned instead of being redistributed.
And here comes my main question: the documentation doesn’t clearly define what exactly is considered a «certificate credit». I checked again to see if there was any additional reference, but the section just mentions it and continues with the distribution.
This gap seems relevant.
A burn tied to an engagement metric that isn’t fully defined works quite differently from the programmed burns or burns activated via governance that we usually see in other projects.
The rest of the distribution is much simpler:
10% → development fund
5% → validation
5% → ratification
As for emissions, Dusk uses a 36-year decay schedule, with halvings every four years, and it also provides for up to an additional 500 million DUSK on top of the initial 500 million supply.
Against that emissions curve, the amounts burned per block may seem small.
But when we’re talking about thousands of blocks and potentially inconsistent participation in certificate credits, the accumulated magnitude starts to become a variable that deserves tracking.
I don’t think this detail changes my stance on $DUSK . But it does change something more important: which metrics I want to observe in the rewards data from now on.
The follow-up question I’d keep a close eye on is how much DUSK ends up being effectively claimed and how much ends up being removed from the supply through this mechanism.
#dusk
$ZEC shows a strong bullish breakout on the 1h chart, recovering all key moving averages with the MA7 crossing above the MA99. With RSI(6) at 70.07 on the 15m chart, the immediate momentum supports a continuation toward the resistance level 495.56.
Buy $ZEC at current levels.
Entry zone: 490.37 - 492.83
Take partial profit 1: 515.38
Take partial profit 2: 534.40
Risk cut: 475.66
Trade here 👇👇👇
Buy $ZEC at current levels.
Entry zone: 490.37 - 492.83
Take partial profit 1: 515.38
Take partial profit 2: 534.40
Risk cut: 475.66
Trade here 👇👇👇
Adding to my short position of $DUSK .
Operation entry: 0.073 - 0.075
Profit target 1: 0.0695
Profit target 2: 0.0659
Risk level: 0.07800
$DUSK is severely overextended with the 1h RSI(6) at 95.29, indicating a blow-off parabola-style peak near the resistance 0.07430. A mean-reversion reversal scalp is favored, as the 15m chart shows initial distribution signals and a loss of momentum below the recent high.
Click here to trade 👇👇👇
Operation entry: 0.073 - 0.075
Profit target 1: 0.0695
Profit target 2: 0.0659
Risk level: 0.07800
$DUSK is severely overextended with the 1h RSI(6) at 95.29, indicating a blow-off parabola-style peak near the resistance 0.07430. A mean-reversion reversal scalp is favored, as the 15m chart shows initial distribution signals and a loss of momentum below the recent high.
Click here to trade 👇👇👇
Log in to explore more content