EthanValeX

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I used to think stronger consensus simply meant having more validators vote on every block. The more I dig into Dusk, the more I think the interesting question is who actually needs to vote.
Dusk’s Succinct Attestation design uses randomly selected voting committees instead of making every provisioner participate in every consensus step. Each committee has 64 credits, with voting power tied to stake. 🔍
That changes the trade-off.
A smaller committee means fewer nodes need to exchange votes, but it also makes committee selection much more important. Dusk uses deterministic sortition, so provisioners are selected according to their stake rather than simply getting an equal chance every time.
The consensus process then splits into proposal, validation and ratification. A selected provisioner proposes a block, a committee validates it, and another committee ratifies the result.
The thresholds are interesting too. A 2/3 supermajority is required to mark a block Valid, while 1/2 + 1 can establish outcomes such as Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum.
So the committee isnt just there to make voting smaller. It creates a bounded group that can reach a decision without requiring the whole validator set to communicate for every step.
Dusk also uses BLS signatures to aggregate committee votes into a single signature. That matters because reducing the number of voters only helps if the resulting consensus messages stay efficient.
The trade-off I see is pretty simple: smaller committees reduce communication, but the randomness and stake weighting behind them have to remain strong enough that selective participation doesnt become concentrated influence.
For me, thats the more interesting part of Dusk consensus: scaling participation without simply scaling the amount of communication.
Do you think committee-based voting is underrated as a way to balance consensus efficiency and security?

There are P2P Orders that look pretty normal from start to finish, but just one bit of rushing at a certain point—and then you end up making things difficult for yourself, guys!
For example, I come across an ad with a pretty good rate. If you only look at the number and place the order, it’s easy to miss the completion rate, the transaction volume, the Merchant’s profile, or the payment conditions. This is the moment I usually check everything carefully before clicking.
After you open the Order, everything stays fine until the counterparty wants to change the account that receives the money midway. In that case, I don’t push to complete the trade just to hurry. Since the payment info is different from the Order, it must be verified again first.
Then the other side says, “Paid.”
There’s a receipt photo, an Order status, even a countdown timer. But I still open my banking app to check the actual received funds. If the money hasn’t come into the account yet, I won’t release.
This is also when people are most vulnerable to psychology and anxiety. The longer the clock keeps running, the more the counterparty urges, the less I want to click based on impulse. Delaying a little to verify is better than releasing just because you’re afraid the Order will time out.
If something goes wrong with the transaction, I keep the Order ID, the chat history, and the receipt for Appeal or to ask Binance Support for help. Binance P2P has Escrow, chat, and a dispute process—but I still need to trade on the platform and follow the protective steps correctly.
In general, as long as the Order is still there, take your time to check. Don’t panic and smash the button just because you see the clock running, guys 😂
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan

I used to think putting an RWA onchain mostly meant taking an existing asset and turning it into a token. But the more I looked at how @Dusk describes native issuance, the more I realized the token itself is only part of the story.
Tokenization wraps an existing asset and brings it onchain. Native issuance can move more of the asset’s lifecycle onchain when the right authorization and product setup are in place.
I actually like this distinction because it changes the way I think about RWAs.
Instead of asking only “Can this asset become a token?”, you can start asking what else can happen onchain around that asset.
For regulated securities, that feels like an important difference. The blockchain isn't just representing something that already exists. It can become part of the infrastructure around how the asset is issued and handled.
That makes me more curious about where native issuance could actually be useful as regulated financial products move onchain.
Would you rather tokenize an existing asset or issue it natively onchain?
$DUSK
#dusk

Has anyone ever run into a situation where the transfer has been made, but the USDT on Binance P2P never gets released?<br>So, I just sold 2,370 USDT to a trader called NHANH_SIEU_TOC_247. The buyer marked “Paid,” but I still hadn’t received the money in my account. On the other side, they explained that their bank was having issues, so the transaction was delayed, and they asked for more time.<br>At first, I kept waiting because there wasn’t anything conclusive that the other party was at fault. But after 30 minutes, the system still allowed them to extend the payment time, while I’d already been waiting quite a while, so I started getting annoyed. I messaged: “Cancel it for me,” then decided to file a dispute directly on Binance so the support team could review it.<br>I also wasn’t in a rush to conclude it was a scam, because the other side was still saying they were experiencing a bank error. When I opened the dispute, I kept all the information—Order details, order status, transaction time, and the entire chat content with the other party—so Support would have enough data to verify. At the same time, I kept all communications on Binance instead of moving to another channel.<br>About 4 hours later, Binance support helped me and the funds were released. That’s when I finally felt relieved.<br>Previously, I thought P2P was just about verifying the Merchant and paying according to the correct process. This 70-million VND case made me realize that once a trade starts to have problems, keeping all the full details and opening a dispute at the right time matters just as much.<br>Since then, I’ve developed a habit: if I encounter any abnormal order, I save all order information, transaction status, and the chat history right on Binance, then message Support so they can handle it according to procedure.<br>@Binance Vietnam <br>#BinanceP2PAnToan

#dusk I kept coming back to one number in Dusk’s institutional story: 300M+ EUR.
That is the amount of assets NPEX plans to bring onchain via Dusk. NPEX is an AFM-regulated exchange licensed as an MTF, Broker and ECSP, so the privacy problem here is very different from hiding a normal crypto transfer.
The obvious assumption is that privacy means hiding everything. Dusk’s model is more conditional.
It has 2 transaction models: Moonlight for public, account-based transactions and Phoenix for shielded transactions. Phoenix uses a 64-byte address, compared with 96 bytes for Moonlight, and is designed to keep details such as sender, receiver and amount from being exposed publicly.
That changes the comparison I care about.
It is not transparent vs private. It is who gets to see what, and when.
Dusk explicitly combines privacy where needed, transparency where useful, and selective disclosure for authorized review.
But the 300M+ EUR figure makes the trade-off harder.
Can a regulated market keep sensitive positions shielded while still giving an issuer, venue, auditor or supervisor exactly the information required for review?
That is where I think Dusk’s privacy model gets interesting.
The technology can hide data. The harder part is controlling disclosure without turning every financial workflow into a compliance headache.
My doubt is simple: privacy is useful only when disclosure can be controlled just as precisely.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

Around 11 p.m. the night before, Huy called me about a Binance P2P transaction worth nearly 150 million VND. His voice sounded pretty panicked: “I just released it, but the money still hasn’t arrived.”
Huy said the buyer had tapped “Marked as paid” and sent the transfer screenshot right away. But because the transaction time was almost up, the other person kept messaging, asking why Huy still hadn’t unlocked the crypto. He opened his banking app and checked a few times but didn’t see the funds. In the end, he thought the bank must be updating slowly, so he still pressed Release.
After everything was done, Huy came back to check his account, but the money still hadn’t appeared.
Only then did he start to worry for real—he thought he had just encountered the worst-case scenario when selling P2P: the crypto was already unlocked, but the money hadn’t come through.
I told him not to jump to conclusions. First, keep the Order ID, the chat history, and the transaction screenshots, then check whether the bank has any transactions currently being processed. I also reminded Huy that if there was a problem, he should handle it right away on Binance.
A little while later, he messaged me: “The money’s in now.”
It turned out that the bank handled the transfer slowly that day, so the funds arrived later than usual. In the end, there was no scam at all—he had just frightened himself for nothing.
He laughed and said: “Earlier I thought I’d basically lost nearly 150 million VND.”
All I could do was tell him that next time, if he doesn’t see the money, he should stay calm and check first. Binance P2P has an Escrow, a chat system, and a dispute process. So if anything goes wrong with a transaction, the best approach is to keep everything on the platform and let the official procedure handle it rather than making decisions on the spot when you’re flustered.
This is also what I wanted to share via #BinanceP2PAnToan so that everyone—especially newcomers—can build a safer habit when trading.
@Binance Vietnam

EVM is already familiar. But is it enough for finance?
With a typical dApp, the more transparent the on-chain data, the better.
But for finance, it’s not necessarily so.
Information about positions, transactions, or strategies can be highly sensitive. You don’t want everything laid bare in front of everyone.
Yet a system for regulated markets can’t simply “hide everything” and be done with it. When needed, there must still be a way for authorized parties to verify.
That’s what I find particularly interesting about DuskEVM.
DuskEVM still follows the familiar path of Solidity and the EVM, so builders, partners, and institutions can access Dusk without having to start over from scratch.
But Dusk doesn’t stop at EVM compatibility.
Through Hedger, DuskEVM supports confidential EVM workflows, using homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs to enable privacy while still allowing review when required.
For me, this is the part that really stands out.
DuskEVM isn’t just adding another place to run smart contracts. It’s trying to bring privacy directly into the EVM workflow, so managed financial applications don’t have to make the simple choice between publishing everything or hiding everything.
In other words, DuskEVM isn’t merely moving the EVM to another chain. It’s testing how far the EVM can go for financial applications that need both privacy and auditability.
Do you think this is the direction an EVM for financial markets should take?
@Dusk $DUSK
#dusk #TrendingTopic #creatorpad

Everything is going smoothly on P2P—if you see these 4 signs, don’t try to continue the trade

A while back, I did a P2P trade. At first, everything was normal. As it got closer to finishing the order, the other side started messaging a lot more, then added a few pretty strange requests. At that point, I thought, “Okay, let’s slow down a bit just to be safe.”

First was the release. The other side kept saying, “Hey, please help me release,” “I’ve transferred already,” sending messages over and over. In cases like this, I don’t argue at all. I just open my banking app and check. If I don’t see the money come in, I don’t release—simple as that.

While trading, they then asked to switch to a different account to receive the money. I didn’t continue right away. I’d verify clearly which account, whose name, and whether the details match the order—then decide what to do next.

There are also cases where they invite you to move to Telegram or WhatsApp to “make it easier,” and then, as a bonus, suggest canceling the P2P order and doing an OTC trade directly, with an even better price. Sounds tempting, sure, but I’ll pass. If I’m trading on Binance, I stay on Binance. If anything goes wrong, there’s chat history, order details, and the support workflow to handle it.

And don’t trust only a screenshot of a transfer. No matter how good the image looks, it can’t compare to me opening my bank and actually seeing the money in my account. If it’s not there, then just wait.

When I encounter these kinds of issues during a trade, I stop immediately: being pushed to release, changing the account to receive money, getting pulled out to Telegram/OTC, or being sent a transfer screenshot and told to release.

If anything feels off, stay calm. Save the Order ID, receipts, and the chat logs. If needed, contact Binance Support.

Have you ever run into a P2P situation that forced you to stop the trade?
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan #USJulyCPI&PPIDueThisWeek $GENIUS $PENGU

I almost unlocked early just because I thought: “This person trades a lot, so they must be fine.”
One time, I sold 600 USDT on Binance P2P. That merchant had an almost 100% completion rate and a history of a few hundred orders. I don’t remember the exact number, but at a glance it looked quite reassuring. The price at the time was also better than a few other options, so I basically chose right away.
The buyer said they’d paid, and then about 30 seconds later messaged me to check and unlock early because they needed to finish the transaction. To be honest, at that moment I also briefly thought: “With a profile this good, it’s probably fine.”
If an account with few transactions requests early unlock, I would refuse immediately. But with someone who has a history of a few hundred orders and an almost 100% completion rate, my reaction was different. I started trusting their reputation before I even checked the transaction.
I opened my banking app and didn’t see the money. I told them I would unlock once the funds were in the account, while the buyer kept messaging that they’d transferred and asked me to check again.
This time, I wasn’t in a rush. I went back to the Order, cross-checked the amount and payment information, and waited a bit longer. About 90 seconds later, the money finally really arrived in my account. I checked again one more time, and only then did I unlock—then the transaction completed completely normally.
Nothing happened that day, but I still remember for quite a while the feeling of almost skipping the process just because the other party’s history looked too perfect.
Since then, I still look at transaction history when choosing a counterparty, but I don’t let it decide when I unlock.
A good history helps me feel more at ease, but it’s only when the money actually hits the account that determines what happens next.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan $BEAT $TUT $CYS

I thought the buyer might have a problem. Turns out that wasn’t the case.
That time, I needed some money, so I used Binance P2P to sell 700 USDT. The exchange rate was around 27,300 VND, totaling nearly 19.11 million VND.
I chose a Merchant with a fairly decent transaction history. After placing the order, I waited for the buyer to make the payment.
After a while, the buyer said they had transferred the money. I opened my banking app to check and saw that the exact 19.11 million VND had just been credited to my account.
The money was enough, so I was about to hit Release right away.
But before I clicked, I took another look at the payment information and noticed the sender’s name didn’t match the name on the Order.
At that moment, I got a little nervous. Nearly 20 million had already come into my account, but the sender’s name was different—I thought, “Something must be off.”
I messaged in the Binance P2P chat to ask the buyer. They explained it was a relative’s account and sent me additional information.
I still hadn’t released.
After sitting down and checking the Order again, I realized something: the name I was looking at is the display name shown in the payment details, but the actual sender’s name is shown in the bank transaction section. These two pieces of information aren’t always in the same place, so I hadn’t noticed the right one at first.
I double-checked all the information again, and the 19.11 million VND amount also matched.
Only then could I breathe a sigh of relief. Turns out I’d basically panicked myself just because I read the information too quickly.
Luckily, I hadn’t released yet, and I also hadn’t jumped to conclusions that the buyer was at fault.
From this experience, I learned a lesson: in P2P trading, if you spot any detail that doesn’t match, stop and verify first—don’t rush to assume.
Brothers trading P2P, just remember this one step: once the money is credited, you should still check the sender’s name and the Order before you hit Release.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan $CYS

I almost chose the wrong merchant on Binance P2P because of a good price

I used to think choosing a merchant on Binance P2P was simple: if the price looks good, pick it. After a few transactions, I realized the price is only part of the decision.
Now, before choosing a merchant, I usually check 4 things: transaction volume, Completion Rate, the Merchant Badge, and the ad limit.
Transaction volume gives me a bit more information about the merchant’s history. I don’t think a higher number of transactions automatically means absolute safety, but if the prices are close between two parties, I usually lean toward the one with a clearer track record.
Completion Rate is also a figure I pay attention to. If the conditions between two ads aren’t that different, I usually prioritize the merchant with the better completion rate. The Merchant Badge is similar. In the past, I often overlooked it; now I always review the profile before trading.
Ad limits are simpler. I just check whether the amount I need to buy or sell falls within what the merchant supports. If it doesn’t fit, I choose a different ad.
But choosing a merchant doesn’t mean I transact right away. I still verify that the payment account name matches the order information, and I keep all communication on Binance P2P. If the other party wants to move to Telegram, Zalo, or change the account midway, I stop.
When it comes to payment, I also don’t Release just because I receive a screenshot or a message saying “money has been transferred.” I check the account myself and only unlock the crypto after confirming the money has truly arrived.
For me, choosing a merchant isn’t about finding the absolute best price. What matters is knowing who I’m trading with before I click Confirm.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan
$GRVT #CreatorpadVN

Thought everything was done on Binance P2P—until I reopened the order!!!
The thing is, I sold 600 USDT on Binance P2P. At the time, the rate was about 27,000 VND, so I expected to receive around 16.2 million VND.
I chose a merchant with a trading history and a pretty solid completion rate. After the buyer paid, I opened my banking app to check, and saw that only 15.9 million had come into my account.
Right then I thought: "Huh, missing nearly 300K?"
I went back to the order to check. The buyer also sent the transaction details and said they had transferred the correct amount. I was going to ask again immediately, but I kept checking the order one more time.
Turns out 16.2 million was the amount I calculated myself using the initial rate, while 15.9 million was the actual total amount of the order after the information had been updated.
The merchant didn’t short anything. The buyer also didn’t do anything wrong. It was me who misread.
Luckily I hadn’t rushed to Release or move to another channel to handle it. I cross-checked the USDT amount, the rate, and the total in the order, and everything matched.
Since then, I’ve drawn a lesson from it: before confirming P2P, I always recheck the price, the quantity, and the final total amount. If anything differs from my initial calculation, I stop and double-check.
Fast traders probably have also had moments like me—seeing one thing and clicking another.
Check the order carefully before trading, especially when the money is up to tens of millions. My friends.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan

New users often make these 7 mistakes on Binance P2P
I used to think trading on Binance P2P was pretty simple: find a good price, transfer money, and receive crypto. After a few trades, I realized the easiest part is actually just tapping Buy or Sell. Most mistakes happen in the few seconds before and after.
The first mistake is only looking at the price. A small difference sometimes makes me overlook more important things like completion rate, transaction history, or the Merchant Badge. Now I always check the counterparty’s profile before looking back at the price.
Another mistake is not matching the payment account name with the information in the order. I don’t see this as an extra step—if the details don’t match, I stop and check.
What I particularly avoid is releasing too early. Screenshots or a message like “I’ve transferred the money” isn’t proof that the funds have actually arrived in the account. I always open my banking app and verify the transaction before unlocking the crypto.
I also don’t move the conversation to Telegram or Zalo just because the counterparty says “for convenience.” Keeping everything on Binance P2P gives me Escrow, chat history, and a dispute process if something goes wrong.
Another sign I always watch out for is being rushed to process immediately, switching payment accounts mid-way, or seeing unusual transfer content. The more they push, the more carefully I check.
Lastly, I always keep the Order ID, receipt, and chat history. If anything goes wrong, I stop the trade and contact Binance Support instead of trying to handle it on my own.
Safe P2P doesn’t need to be overly complicated. For me, just dropping a few bad habits and checking the right things before I release makes a huge difference.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan

@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan
Red flags on Binance P2P aren’t always what they seem
After many transactions on Binance P2P, I realized that a red flag is rarely shown in the way people still think.
No one messages: "I’m about to scam you."
Instead, they might say: "Let’s switch to Telegram for convenience." Or: "Please unlock first for me—the money is already being processed." Or even just: "Can you switch to another account to receive the payment?"
At first glance, these requests seem completely normal. But I noticed they all have one thing in common: they push me to step out of the safe process that Binance P2P has set up.
So I follow a very simple rule. I only communicate within the Binance P2P chat window, where Escrow, chat history, and the dispute/complaint process can protect me if anything goes wrong. If the other party wants to move the conversation to another platform or change payment details mid-way, I’ll stop the transaction and verify again.
I also never click Release just because I see a screenshot or a message saying "it’s already transferred." What I trust is the actual balance in the banking app. I only complete the transaction once the money is in my account.
After that, I still keep the Order ID, receipt, and chat history. It might never be needed, but if I ever have to contact Binance Support, all the information will be ready.
Now I don’t try to guess who is good or bad. I just ask one question: Is this request causing me to move outside Binance P2P’s safe process? If the answer is "yes," I stop.

LONG $AKE
Entry 1
0.00422–0.00424 if price holds support and a bullish confirmation candle appears.
Entry 2
Wait for the 1H candle to close above 0.00434 (breaks above MA99), then watch for a retest to go Long.
Stop Loss
Below 0.00405.
Take Profit
TP1: 0.00450 TP2: 0.00480 TP3: 0.00520 if a strong breakout occurs.
$AKE

SHORT $BNB
Entry
592–594 if price retraces upward and a bullish rejection candle appears. Or when the price closes below 591 with increased volume.
Stop Loss
598.
Take Profit
TP1: 589 TP2: 587 TP3: 584
$BNB

5 seconds before clicking Release can determine the outcome of the entire transaction
Every time I trade on Binance P2P, I have a habit: I pause for about 5 seconds before I click Release.
It sounds simple, but I think those are the most important 5 seconds of the whole transaction.
Binance P2P is a peer-to-peer trading platform where Binance helps protect users with Escrow, a chat system, and a dispute resolution process. So I always keep all communication on the platform and refuse any requests to move to Telegram or Zalo.
Before making a transaction, I spend a few seconds checking the Merchant Badge, completion rate, transaction volume, and matching the name of the payout account with the information on the order. If the counterparty wants to change the receiving account or there are any unusual signs, I cancel the transaction.
When it comes to payment, I only trust the actual balance shown in my bank account. I never unlock crypto just because I see a screenshot, a confirmation message, or someone urging, “I’ve already transferred.” If the transfer content is unusual or the money hasn’t arrived in my account, I keep waiting and checking again.
After the transaction is completed, I still save the Order ID, receipts, and chat history. You may never need them, but if I have to file a dispute, this information will help the Binance Support team resolve it faster.
In my view, safe trading isn’t about how quickly you click Release. It’s about taking an extra 5 seconds to verify everything before making the final decision. If you’re still unsure, stop and contact Binance Support.
@Binance Vietnam #BinanceP2PAnToan $LAB

Every time I read a protocol that calls itself "trustless," I start checking the timestamp next to the proof, not the proof itself, because that's usually where the real risk hides. Babylon's TBV design settles Bitcoin state correctly. Markets don't wait for settlement to finish.

First issue: proof finality and price movement don't run on the same clock. Bitcoin's collateral state gets proven cryptographically, but propagating that proof to every connected chain takes time. During that gap, a liquidation engine on the borrowing chain is still reacting to the last state it saw, not the one Bitcoin is actually in. If price moves hard enough inside that window, positions get liquidated against a version of reality that's already outdated by the time the trade executes. The documentation proves the proof is valid. It doesn't prove every protocol received it at the same moment.

Second issue: two chains can be "final" on different timelines at once, and this isn't hypothetical. Security researchers examining Babylon's consensus layer earlier this year warned that a similar class of flaw could allow chain splits or invalid transaction finality if left unpatched, with the fix requiring a coordinated upgrade that left the network in an exposed window until enough participants adopted it. That's the same mechanic at play with TBV proofs: Chain A recognizes a new Bitcoin state, Chain B hasn't processed it yet, and until both sides agree, they're making decisions off different pictures of the same collateral. Cryptography guarantees the proof itself is correct. It says nothing about which chain acts on it first.

None of this means TBV's design fails. It means "trustless" removes custodial risk but not coordination risk, and delegators relying on cross-chain collateral are trusting propagation speed as much as they're trusting math. That's a separate risk to price in, not an afterthought.

#baby $VIC $BABY @BabylonLabs_io

I was looking into @BabylonLabs_io Bitcoin Staking Protocol today — the decentralization pitch, Bitcoin's security spread across many hands instead of a few. $BABY . Pulled up the FP leaderboard instead of the whitepaper. Found the cutoff line halfway down: only the top 60 out of "250 finality providers" get active voting power. Wait — sixty, out of two hundred and fifty. Per Messari's last public breakdown, the top three alone — Lombard, Solv, PumpBTC — held 71.5% of all delegated BTC between them. BABY sitting at $0.010, ~$47M market cap, Aug 4 snapshot.
That's the gap that stuck with me. The whole security model rests on Bitcoin's weight being spread across many independent hands instead of a few — but three names deciding most of what finalizes and roughly 190 leaderboard entries that never get a vote is closer to a company photo with 250 people in the frame and three signatures on every contract that actually ships.
Not calling the FP set broken here — registration is open, the rankings sit right there in public. But it's a split I hadn't clocked before: the protocol can be genuinely permissionless to join while the voting power inside it stays exactly as concentrated as any validator set it was supposed to improve on. First time I read "250+ finality providers," I took that as proof the pitch was already true.
Coffee's cold, still staring at that cutoff line.
Does it loosen as more BTC flows in, or is "decentralized security" just doing narrative work the numbers don't back yet?
$LAB $BABY #baby

Spent the evening in @BabylonLabs_io 's staking-script docs, tracing how EOTS forces a Finality Provider's private key into the open the moment they double-sign. Wasn't the exposure mechanism that stopped me, though. It was flipping to the slashing parameters page mid-read — checked it just now, Aug 3 snapshot: 0.1% of delegated BTC gets burned. For the FP's own BABY self-stake, it's 5%. $BABY itself sitting at $0.01336, down close to 6% on the week, ~$49.85M market cap.
That's the gap that stuck with me. A Finality Provider who double-signs gets tombstoned — voting power to zero, permanently, no unjailing, full stop. But the capital destroyed is a rounding error. The punishment that ends a career and the punishment that touches the money aren't the same size at all.
Hold up — not a bug. BTC stakers keep 99.9% of their stake even when their FP gets caught cheating. The system protects delegators, not the FP. "This permanently destroys your identity on the network" and "this costs almost nothing in dollars" are both true, same signature.
Reminds me of getting banned from an industry for life over a fine you'd barely notice. The punishment was never priced in BTC. It's priced in trust.
Caught myself expecting the two numbers to match — assuming permanent meant expensive. They don't have to.
Does slashing that small even deter anything, or is tombstoning doing all the work while the burn is just there for optics?
$LAB #baby