Jeonlees

Moshi moshi!!! I won a prize he he he — 1 BNB!!
It seems like it's the first time I've received a reward of this kind.
Thanks, Binance 🥰
$BNB

My article was forwarded by the official account!! Thank you for the official recognition!! @Binance News I will continue to create 💪@币安广场

Doing @axisrobotics tasks by yourself is so boring,
so now I’ve been streaming on the Binance Square for two days in a row, haha.
Playing with everyone is really fun!!

Also, the “linked sessions” that the Square rolled out earlier mean you can chat between two live rooms,
then exchange experience with each other.

Even a few minutes into the stream, some friends asked me to explain in plain language what this is. If it’s like the “123 link” type on Douyin,
so friends can jump in right away too, and if they don’t know something, they can ask questions.
It feels pretty great too, haha.

Basically, the core operations were already explained in the tutorials I shared with everyone before.
Then during a live stream, one friend asked:

>>>>> Host, can you explain in plain language what you’re doing? Tell us about it.

You’re not playing a video game where you clear levels.
You’re remotely controlling a robotic arm inside a browser,
demonstrating to the robot how to “grasp, how to place, and how to rotate.”
After the demonstration, the system will replay and check whether your actions this time are reliable.
Once it passes, you go sign on the Portfolio, and record it on the Base chain.

After signing, it counts as you submitting a set of training data—and only then does your score for this round count.
So it looks like you’re just stacking blocks, clipping/holding objects, and arranging things.
But underneath, you’re actually providing data to Physical AI.
Whether the robot can grasp stably and place things correctly in the real world later will, in part, depend on these trajectories.

Why go through all this trouble?
Because real-machine data is too expensive.

In a lab, they need people to watch the real robotic arm recording—it's slow, costly, and the number of scenarios is limited.
Axis’s plan is: regular people can open a webpage to operate, validate the data, then put it on-chain and use it to train models.

>>>>> Why do this?
Basically, it’s all for the airdrop.

Princess
@0xsexybanana
had already explained it extremely, extremely clearly before.

Every day you do tasks, earn Axis Points.
By contributing valuable data-trajectory, you’ll get the maximum airdrop.

You can do tasks from the official website:
s.kaito.ai/qnyCDcy

For this Binance Wallet event, they also opened an extra 1.5 million points pool—two rounds of 750k each. It’s calculated separately from regular tasks:
hub.axisrobotics.ai/?tab=binance

Anyway, I’ve already streamed for two days in a row. If you have questions about anything you don’t understand, just come ask in the live room.
Tasks refresh at 8 PM—if you’re free, come to the Square and play together!!!!!!

Turns out it wasn’t that I couldn’t get up, but that I got on the train early.
😭
#我的女友景甜

Fun fun fun, but there’s no leaderboard—everyone, go fast!
I’m basically doing it in about 10 seconds. How do you all do it in 3–4 seconds?!
Usually I update around 8 o’clock, then immediately go do the tasks.
There are lots of these simple tasks, so the operations are also very simple.
These days, it feels like I could play while streaming.
If you have any experience, feel free to share and chat.
If you don’t know how, you can also ask me～～
It’s pretty interesting 🥰

If you haven’t played yet,

⬇️⬇️⬇️

s.kaito.ai/qnyCDcy

Today @axisrobotics
teamed up with Binance Wallet to launch a mission.
Usually, using the desktop version to operate the robot arm works better.
s.kaito.ai/qnyCDcy

If you can’t find it, follow the steps in my screenshot:
1️⃣ More — 2️⃣ Rewards — 3️⃣ On-chain opportunities — 4️⃣ Axis Robotics

Then I’ll briefly explain the basic controls for everyone:

Arrow keys:
⬆️ Stretch the robot arm
⬇️ Retract the robot arm
⬅️ Move the robot arm to the right
➡️ Move the robot arm to the left

E / D: Control the robot arm height (move up/down)
Q / W: Move the gripper left/right
A / S: Rotate the robot arm clockwise / counterclockwise
Z / X: Flip the gripper up / down
Space: Grab / release

R: Reset
N: Save checkpoint
B: Restore the previously saved checkpoint

Also, you can drag the robot arm directly with your mouse— in many cases, it’s more convenient than tapping keys nonstop.

Here are a few small tips for doing missions that I think are more important than memorizing shortcut keys:

1️⃣ If the robot arm feels too slow, adjust Sensitivity first
You can adjust sensitivity at the bottom of the control interface. Turn it up a bit and the response will be much faster—especially when making long-distance moves.

2️⃣ If you’re not sure what something is, don’t rush to grab
Just left-click the item. The name and description will appear at the top-left. Confirm the target before acting; otherwise, if you grab the wrong thing, fixing the layout again is really frustrating.

3️⃣ Use checkpoints a lot
N saves, and B restores.

Especially for missions with multiple steps—once you complete a stage, I recommend saving a checkpoint. If later you mess up a step, just load from the checkpoint instead of restarting everything.

4️⃣ For multi-step missions, follow the order strictly
It’s not considered complete just because you finally place the items correctly. After confirming each numbered step is completed, then proceed to the next one—otherwise, even if the final state looks correct, the system may still refuse to pass.

Lastly, here’s a scoring trap:

Even though the same mission can be submitted repeatedly (up to 5 times), the system evaluates your overall performance. Don’t submit obviously terrible trajectories just to “hit 5”—it could end up costing you more.

When you do it for the first time, operations can make it feel a bit awkward—
you can spend a bit more time practicing, and try a few runs.

(Tasks are updated every day at 8 PM)

I’m watching @Dusk right now, and the question I most want to ask isn’t anymore “Can RWA really take off?” but rather: after RWA truly gets going, how does its value get back to $DUSK ?

This question is actually pretty crucial.

Dusk’s official website has already posted three very impressive numbers: confirmed issuance size of €300 million+, coverage of 50,000+ investors, and more than 210 million DUSK staked. Recently, the team has continued pushing NPEX, SME private placements in the market, and Dusk Trade—basically the whole set of regulated asset on-chain logic.

The business story is indeed becoming more and more complete.

But when I look back at tokenomics, I feel there’s a very clear gap here:

At the moment, the most direct demand for DUSK is still Gas + Staking. And staking rewards aren’t entirely sourced from real business revenue. The protocol also plans to keep releasing up to 500 million DUSK for the next 36 years. In third-party network data, as of August 23, total on-chain staking across the network has already reached about 215.6 million DUSK, and the APR is still around 22%.

So I’m a bit conflicted.

If now the high yield mainly relies on additional issuance, then at its core it’s still “using future-released rewards to stake today’s stakers.” For this model to work long-term, it ultimately must be taken over by on-chain transaction fees.

But the problem is exactly here: €300 million in assets on-chain sounds huge, but an “asset’s size” doesn’t equal “DUSK buy orders.” How much on-chain trading do these assets actually generate? How much Gas? Can the fee revenue cover how much additional issuance is being created? In practice, it’s very hard for ordinary token holders to figure out that accounting.

Also, after fees enter the block rewards, they mostly get redistributed again to validators and funds—not simply and straightforwardly burned in full.

So my biggest doubt about Dusk right now isn’t that there’s no business—it’s that the business is already running forward, yet token value capture still hasn’t been proven clearly enough.

Going forward, what we truly should look at isn’t how many billions of RWA have been signed, but rather: how much real, ongoing, non-subsidy demand these hundreds of millions in assets actually bring to DUSK every month.

That number is more important than any cooperation announcement.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

You’ve gone in deep
I don’t believe anyone can deny it to this extent 🤔$DEBIT
Bring it here!!! please

$DEBIT Who has my sold low

I recently watched the activity for @Dusk . My biggest question isn’t “whether there’s traffic,” but rather: where do all this traffic ultimately end up?

Right now, Dusk × Binance CreatorPad is still running. The prize pool is 480,000 DUSK, and the tasks are very straightforward: create content, trade $DUSK , earn points, and climb the rankings. A few days ago, Binance Square’s AMA also awarded 6,550 DUSK as rewards. From an operations perspective, this playbook really is effective—pull exposure, content volume, and trading actions together, and the short-term numbers won’t look bad.

But the problem is also exactly here.

Writing about Dusk for points is completely different from actually using Dusk. The actions that are easiest to complete for the current tasks still mostly happen on Binance: posting content and trading tokens. However, the user actions that Dusk truly needs should be migrating assets to the mainnet, using a wallet, participating in staking, and even entering applications on DuskEVM.

Especially this year, Dusk has been constantly filling in product gaps: in April, it announced Dusk Connect and an updated wallet; in June, the Boreas upgrade landed on the mainnet. And in the ecosystem, we can already see Sozu, Pieswap, and Dusk Domains. This suggests that “where users go after the event” isn’t completely unsupported.

But what I want to see more right now is another set of data:

After 480,000 DUSK are spent, how many new mainnet wallets are created? How many people migrate assets for the first time? How many become staking users? How many are left after 7 days and 30 days once the activity ends?

If in the end it only leaves a lot of content and a single round of trading volume, then it looks more like buying exposure. If CreatorPad users can truly be brought into Dusk mainnet, then it’s only then that “activity users” become “ecosystem users.”

It’s great to be lively, but what operations ultimately cares about is never how many people came—it’s how many people are still there when they leave.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

shabi project $TMX
Received 30u…. damn, damn, damn！！！
I’ve already locked the coins I pulled as if it was free
disgusting 🤮

Seems you're not meant to be with a regular trash coin, huh?
Yesterday was the first time I stopped the loss and got out, and then...
Before that, it was always back to zero...
And then it really all went to zero...
#memecoin

I’ve been watching the chart of $DUSK these past few days, and the more I look at it, the more I find a certain problem kind of interesting: @Dusk has been talking about “deterministic settlement” all the time, but strong settlement certainty on-chain doesn’t mean that in the exchange you’ll actually be able to trade comfortably and get good fills. A lot of people end up mixing these two things together when they talk.

Recently, DUSK has also been shifting its focus toward regulated finance, RWA, and the SME private placement market. On August 15, it even specifically updated its content on tokenization. The narrative really does sound more and more like institutional-grade financial infrastructure—yet as a trader, I can’t help but ask: has the token’s own trading quality kept up with those three words, “institutional-grade”?

Right now, DUSK’s market cap is about $37 million, and its 24-hour trading volume is around $6 million. At first glance, that doesn’t look too bad. But if you look back further, you’ll see the volume jumps a lot: on August 15 it was only about $2.17 million, then on the 17th it suddenly surged to $8.12 million. For short-term trading, the most fragile kind of liquidity is when “it looks very lively when there’s a trend, but when you actually place big orders, the order book suddenly thins out.”

Even more worth noting: back in June, Binance removed the DUSK/BTC spot trading pair. If a coin in the future really wants to take on more assets, more institutions, and larger capital scales, I think you can’t only look at whether there’s a USDT pair—you have to see whether market depth across different venues can be maintained over the long term.

The derivatives side is similar. Previously, the funding rate on DUSKUSDT swung from about +0.005% quickly to -0.01% and even lower. When a small-cap coin’s funding rate flips back and forth like that, I generally don’t interpret it as “there are more opportunities.” More often, it just means long and short positions are likely to become imbalanced in a short time. Once the broader market suddenly dumps hard, slippage, order cancellations, and order-book drawdowns are the real pressure test.

So my question about DUSK is actually very simple: if it has been emphasizing deterministic settlement on the technical side, when will the trading layer also be able to deliver “certainty” on the same level?

The story can be told slowly, but liquidity is something you can’t fool people with. A truly institutional-grade market shouldn’t only be able to handle it on-chain—it also needs to hold up in the order book.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

My biggest question about @Dusk right now isn’t whether the technology can run—it’s this: if there are truly more and more assets on-chain in the future, how much of the growth upside can $DUSK holders actually capture?

The more I look into the token model, the more I think this question is worth digging into.

DUSK’s initial supply is 500 million tokens, and then it’s also planned to release nearly another 500 million over the next 36 years, for a final cap of 1 billion. The current emission speed for the first four years is about 19.8574 DUSK per block. The purpose is quite clear—give nodes enough rewards so the network can grow in security.

Here’s the issue.

For $DUSK , the most straightforward “must-haves” are basically two things: Gas and staking. Block rewards are made up of “newly issued supply + transaction fees.” Block producers take the lion’s share, the development fund gets a fixed 10%, and the validation and confirmation committee also participates in the distribution. In other words, fee growth is more about redistributing value to network participants—not about simply and continuously burning tokens in a straightforward way.

That creates a contradiction I care about:

The supply-side release schedule is written very clearly, but when will the demand side truly catch up depends on actual on-chain activity.

Recently, Dusk has been talking more about SMEs, private markets, and real-world asset tokenization. I agree with this direction. The problem is that “getting assets on-chain” and “consuming lots of DUSK after assets are on-chain” are two different things. How much assets get issued, how much settlement volume is generated, how much DUSK institutions need to hold, and ultimately how much sustained buy-side pressure the token can generate—these are the data I want to see next.

Previously, you could look at the technology and the roadmap. Now you should start looking at the economic flywheel: How much Gas is consumed per month? Is the ratio of fees to node rewards increasing? How far off is new issuance from real fee revenue? Does growth in the RWA business actually transmit value to $DUSK ?

If these numbers never really take off, then even the most beautiful long-term halving model is fundamentally just pushing inflation pressure into the future.

I’m not bearish on Dusk—in fact, precisely because it wants to build “regulated financial services on-chain,” I believe the step of value capture for the token can’t be vague or hand-wavy. Institutional adoption is a win for the project, but only when institutional adoption ultimately turns into real DUSK demand is it a win for token holders.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

My biggest question about @Dusk right now isn’t whether it can be built technically—it’s this: how much does an ordinary user actually need to learn first before they can truly use it?
On August 15, Dusk was still talking about how tokenization “simplifies the full asset lifecycle.” I agree with that direction, but when I follow the current product flow, what I feel is something else.
For example, if you migrate ERC20/BEP20 DUSK to the mainnet, you first need a Dusk account, then you also need a self-custody wallet that can connect via WalletConnect, and you have to set aside extra ETH/BNB for gas. It’s not a one-and-done action; you may have to Approve first and then Execute. The typical time to receive funds given by the official materials is still about an hour. The easiest pitfall is: Approve succeeding doesn’t mean the migration is completed.
Going the other way—from the Dusk mainnet to BSC—is even more demanding. You have to send the coins to a specified bridge account, and then fill in your own BSC address in the Memo. The official documentation even explicitly warns that if the Memo is missing or entered incorrectly, the transaction won’t be automatically handled, and in severe cases it may not be recoverable. On top of that, there’s also a bridge fee of 1 DUSK, which similarly requires about an hour to wait for.
This creates something of a contradiction.
What Dusk wants to build is infrastructure for real finance and real assets. But today, for a normal user, even “moving their own coins from A to B” requires understanding mainnets, BSC, ERC20, WalletConnect, Approve, Memo…
Back in April this year, @Dusk also announced new browser/desktop/mobile wallets and Dusk Connect, and I actually feel that shows the team also knows there’s still a lot of work to fill in the road for the frontend entry and user interaction.
I hope there will be less “the user double-checks everything themselves” and more product safeguards that cover for the user. Automatic address recognition, error prevention, bridge-status visualization, and clearly telling me where the money went and what to do next after a failure—these aren’t flashy, but they determine whether ordinary people will truly dare to put their assets in.
In the end, financial infrastructure isn’t only about how strong the cryptography is; it’s also about whether, when something goes wrong, the user will be left completely bewildered.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

Bull incoming but I went to see the pandas
This surge, again, left me as a spectator 😭

$TMX has successfully beaten termmax so far
Before the opening it was 0.19; the named partnership hung for a year—wrote for a year
When it came through, it was under 300u
In the meantime, all kinds of tasks kept going nonstop, and in the end it turned out like this
cnm termmax @TermMax
By the end, it’s not as good as writing the square’s tasks + doing boosters

I’ve been clicking back and forth through a few pages of @TermMax over the past couple of days. What bothers me most isn’t whether the interest rate is high or low, but this: the product has kept expanding, yet do ordinary users really know what risks they’re taking on when they click in?

Now the homepage simultaneously shows Fixed-Rate Lending, Limit Order, Alpha, Dual Investment, various XP/AP rewards, and even multi-chain switching. For experienced DeFi users, they can understand it all. But for first-time visitors, it’s really easy to turn into “click whichever number looks bigger.”

Especially one detail that I think can’t be glossed over.

TermMax’s regular borrowing isn’t as simple as “deposit it and get back a fixed amount at maturity.” On the borrowing side, there are MLTV, liquidation LTV, and a maturity date. If the lender runs into borrower default and liquidation fails, some of the documentation is very clear: what you ultimately receive may be collateral assets allocated proportionally, not the USDC you originally lent out.

That conflicts with the first psychological expectation created by the page’s “Fixed Rate” and “Fixed Term.” What’s fixed is the interest rate and the term—not the principal repayment pathway.

And with the TGE on August 25 coming up soon, TermMax’s current progress is already significant: TVL over $90 million, 1.5 million+ registered wallets, 90,000+ DAU, and coverage across 10 EVM chains. The larger the user base gets, the more I feel the product can’t just keep adding features. Risk disclosures, position status, maturity reminders, and especially “what you’ll finally get back in abnormal situations” should be made even more foolproof than they are today.

The real product barrier in DeFi has never been whether you can build the trades—it’s whether users know where things could go wrong before anything happens to them.

I think this is exactly the kind of gap that @TermMax should fill even more after the TGE.

#TermMax @TermMax

I’m increasingly feeling a noticeable unease about the ecosystem of <@Dusk >: the partners are looking more and more like “real finance,” but the on-chain outcomes haven’t yet evolved to match what true finance looks like.

This NPEX track is actually quite solid. The official disclosures say NPEX serves 100+ SMEs, with cumulative financing exceeding €200 million, connecting 17,500+ active investors; Dusk previously mentioned bringing about €300 million AUM from NPEX on-chain. After that, it added Chainlink’s CCIP, DataLink, and Data Streams, with Cordial handling custody and Quantoz providing euro stablecoins. Assets, trading venues, data, custody, payments—piece by piece, the puzzle looks basically complete.

But what I really want to see isn’t “who they partnered with.” It’s how much real assets, how many users, how much secondary-market trading, and how much ongoing liquidity these resources have actually brought to Dusk. The most eye-catching numbers in the current public materials are still more about the original scale of the partner entities, rather than the results that have already been deposited on the Dusk chain.

What’s even more interesting is that on August 15th, Dusk itself just published a post admitting that tokenization of assets—cutting them into smaller pieces—doesn’t automatically create investment demand and liquidity. I actually agree with that, because it’s precisely the part that should be questioned right now.

If later we can see NPEX assets in terms of on-chain scale, number of holders, turnover rate, and the amount of stablecoin settlements, I’ll raise my evaluation significantly. Otherwise, no matter how impressive the institutional partnerships look, it can only show that the road is laid out—it can’t prove that the ecosystem is really running.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

Going out is just lots and lots of people
Hot weather, hot hot hot