一天又过去了
98 Posts
一天又过去了
11 Following
21 Followers
240 Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
A Ledger, Two Modes — What Problem Is Dusk’s Moonlight and Phoenix Really Trying to Solve?
In Dusk’s latest design, there are two parallel ledger models: Moonlight and Phoenix. Moonlight is a transparent account model where balances and transfers are both visible—ideal for scenarios that require public reconciliation. Phoenix is a privacy-preserving UTXO model where transactions are verified through zero-knowledge proofs, and neither the amounts nor the sender are revealed.
Sounds pretty high-end, right? A chain running two ledger systems at the same time—transparent and private—that can switch depending on the use case. But after reading through it, I only have one feeling—Dusk is trying to please everyone, but it might end up pleasing no one. @Dusk
Moonlight is useful for institutions—compliance audits need to be able to see the ledger. Phoenix is useful for retail users—transactions shouldn’t be something people can look at. But here’s the problem: can the same asset switch between the two modes? If it can, then what’s the point of privacy? An asset that’s private in Phoenix today becomes transparent once you switch it to Moonlight tomorrow. Your privacy has an expiration date. Once it expires, it stops working.
If it can’t, then this dual-ledger design just becomes two parallel tracks: transparent assets go through the transparent channel, private assets go through the private channel, and they don’t interfere with each other. So what’s the difference from having two independent chains?
Dusk’s real trade-off is to let the same financial system choose ledger semantics based on the scenario. The design idea is indeed smart, but between “smart” and “easy to use” there’s a wall. Ordinary users have no way of knowing when they should use Moonlight and when they should use Phoenix. Institutional users need auditing, retail users need privacy—Dusk wants to satisfy both sides at once, but the result may be that neither side feels it’s enough.
Moonlight is like a bank account, and Phoenix is like a password-protected ticket. If you put both cash and encrypted tickets in the same account, do you really feel comfortable? Anyway, I still can’t figure out what this dual-ledger approach is actually solving—or whether it’s just creating new confusion.
#dusk $DUSK
In Dusk’s latest design, there are two parallel ledger models: Moonlight and Phoenix. Moonlight is a transparent account model where balances and transfers are both visible—ideal for scenarios that require public reconciliation. Phoenix is a privacy-preserving UTXO model where transactions are verified through zero-knowledge proofs, and neither the amounts nor the sender are revealed.
Sounds pretty high-end, right? A chain running two ledger systems at the same time—transparent and private—that can switch depending on the use case. But after reading through it, I only have one feeling—Dusk is trying to please everyone, but it might end up pleasing no one. @Dusk
Moonlight is useful for institutions—compliance audits need to be able to see the ledger. Phoenix is useful for retail users—transactions shouldn’t be something people can look at. But here’s the problem: can the same asset switch between the two modes? If it can, then what’s the point of privacy? An asset that’s private in Phoenix today becomes transparent once you switch it to Moonlight tomorrow. Your privacy has an expiration date. Once it expires, it stops working.
If it can’t, then this dual-ledger design just becomes two parallel tracks: transparent assets go through the transparent channel, private assets go through the private channel, and they don’t interfere with each other. So what’s the difference from having two independent chains?
Dusk’s real trade-off is to let the same financial system choose ledger semantics based on the scenario. The design idea is indeed smart, but between “smart” and “easy to use” there’s a wall. Ordinary users have no way of knowing when they should use Moonlight and when they should use Phoenix. Institutional users need auditing, retail users need privacy—Dusk wants to satisfy both sides at once, but the result may be that neither side feels it’s enough.
Moonlight is like a bank account, and Phoenix is like a password-protected ticket. If you put both cash and encrypted tickets in the same account, do you really feel comfortable? Anyway, I still can’t figure out what this dual-ledger approach is actually solving—or whether it’s just creating new confusion.
#dusk $DUSK
Selective disclosure looks elegant, but the more I think about it, the more it feels like trust has merely been moved to a different place.
In Dusk’s latest whitepaper, there’s a design called Moonlight: a public exchange layer running in parallel with a privacy layer. Institutions can choose visibility based on the scenario—use the shielded layer when privacy is needed, and the public layer when transparency is required. Sounds flexible, right?
But if you think carefully, the phrase “selective disclosure” by itself implies that—control is not in your hands. Who defines the disclosure rules? Who holds the verification authority? If the compliance keys are controlled by a small number of people, then this system is, in essence, not much different from permissioned finance—except it adds another chain. I’ve gone through the whitepaper several times, and I couldn’t find any specific description of who controls the compliance keys, how they’re rotated, or how abuse is prevented. @Dusk
Dusk’s whole bet is: “write audit permissions directly into the protocol.” That’s clever, but it also means it converts the compliance risks faced by a privacy coin into a trust problem—namely, who controls the compliance key. You don’t need to trust the project team anymore; instead, you need to trust the people who hold the keys not to misuse their privileges. Trust is relocated, not eliminated. If the key controller is bribed, attacked, or simply does nothing, is your privacy still yours? A system that can open up privacy—even if it locks it down well most of the time—is not secure enough for me.
As one comment put it plainly: “Selective disclosure shifts the trust bottleneck to the compliance key controller.” If the key controller is a regulator, then this system effectively leaves a backdoor for regulators. If the key controller is the project team itself, what’s the difference from traditional finance? Dusk says this is a “auditable privacy” solution, but the word “auditable” itself means—there are circumstances under which privacy can be opened. Monero’s privacy is not openable; Dusk’s privacy is openable. They’re both called privacy, but they’re completely different in nature.
#dusk $DUSK
In Dusk’s latest whitepaper, there’s a design called Moonlight: a public exchange layer running in parallel with a privacy layer. Institutions can choose visibility based on the scenario—use the shielded layer when privacy is needed, and the public layer when transparency is required. Sounds flexible, right?
But if you think carefully, the phrase “selective disclosure” by itself implies that—control is not in your hands. Who defines the disclosure rules? Who holds the verification authority? If the compliance keys are controlled by a small number of people, then this system is, in essence, not much different from permissioned finance—except it adds another chain. I’ve gone through the whitepaper several times, and I couldn’t find any specific description of who controls the compliance keys, how they’re rotated, or how abuse is prevented. @Dusk
Dusk’s whole bet is: “write audit permissions directly into the protocol.” That’s clever, but it also means it converts the compliance risks faced by a privacy coin into a trust problem—namely, who controls the compliance key. You don’t need to trust the project team anymore; instead, you need to trust the people who hold the keys not to misuse their privileges. Trust is relocated, not eliminated. If the key controller is bribed, attacked, or simply does nothing, is your privacy still yours? A system that can open up privacy—even if it locks it down well most of the time—is not secure enough for me.
As one comment put it plainly: “Selective disclosure shifts the trust bottleneck to the compliance key controller.” If the key controller is a regulator, then this system effectively leaves a backdoor for regulators. If the key controller is the project team itself, what’s the difference from traditional finance? Dusk says this is a “auditable privacy” solution, but the word “auditable” itself means—there are circumstances under which privacy can be opened. Monero’s privacy is not openable; Dusk’s privacy is openable. They’re both called privacy, but they’re completely different in nature.
#dusk $DUSK
NPEX has been shouting its partnership for three years—if one day it switches to a different chain, what will Dusk be left with?
Dusk’s biggest card is NPEX. It’s a licensed exchange in the Netherlands, with an MTF license and regulated by the AFM. Dusk’s founder is also the non-executive CTO of NPEX. With over €300 million in assets “about to go on-chain,” NPEX has served more than 100 small and medium-sized businesses, facilitated over €200 million in financing, and has 17,500 active investors. This narrative underpins much of Dusk’s valuation.
But I keep thinking about one question: if NPEX decides to switch to a different chain one day, what will Dusk have left?
The relationship between NPEX and Dusk is indeed deep—Dusk is a shareholder in NPEX. But first and foremost, NPEX is a licensed exchange. What it needs is the lowest-cost, most compliant and stable technical solution. If another privacy chain offers better terms, will NPEX switch? Equity can bind ownership, but it can’t bind business decisions.
What’s even more concerning is that NPEX’s “assets about to go on-chain” claim has been going on for three years. Whether the official disclosure that “hundreds of millions of euros in securitized assets have already been issued and traded on-chain” is true is hard for outsiders to verify. I searched for a long time, but didn’t see any on-chain asset data that can be publicly verified. If NPEX’s assets are always just a promise on a roadmap, then Dusk’s entire valuation is built on sand—something that could be pulled out at any time. @Dusk
The more cross-chain and data-layer dependency relies on unified standards, the more important the operating boundaries of CCIP and DataLink become. Next, we should observe the actual number of securities integrated, the scale of cross-chain assets, the data update frequency, and secondary-market trading—not just tally partnership logos.
The division of labor among the three partners is indeed clear. But what Dusk provides in this industry chain is “technology that can be replaced.” NPEX’s assets are scarce, Chainlink’s data is scarce—what about Dusk’s technology? If another privacy chain can also meet NPEX’s needs, then Dusk’s position won’t be as solid. #dusk $DUSK
Dusk’s biggest card is NPEX. It’s a licensed exchange in the Netherlands, with an MTF license and regulated by the AFM. Dusk’s founder is also the non-executive CTO of NPEX. With over €300 million in assets “about to go on-chain,” NPEX has served more than 100 small and medium-sized businesses, facilitated over €200 million in financing, and has 17,500 active investors. This narrative underpins much of Dusk’s valuation.
But I keep thinking about one question: if NPEX decides to switch to a different chain one day, what will Dusk have left?
The relationship between NPEX and Dusk is indeed deep—Dusk is a shareholder in NPEX. But first and foremost, NPEX is a licensed exchange. What it needs is the lowest-cost, most compliant and stable technical solution. If another privacy chain offers better terms, will NPEX switch? Equity can bind ownership, but it can’t bind business decisions.
What’s even more concerning is that NPEX’s “assets about to go on-chain” claim has been going on for three years. Whether the official disclosure that “hundreds of millions of euros in securitized assets have already been issued and traded on-chain” is true is hard for outsiders to verify. I searched for a long time, but didn’t see any on-chain asset data that can be publicly verified. If NPEX’s assets are always just a promise on a roadmap, then Dusk’s entire valuation is built on sand—something that could be pulled out at any time. @Dusk
The more cross-chain and data-layer dependency relies on unified standards, the more important the operating boundaries of CCIP and DataLink become. Next, we should observe the actual number of securities integrated, the scale of cross-chain assets, the data update frequency, and secondary-market trading—not just tally partnership logos.
The division of labor among the three partners is indeed clear. But what Dusk provides in this industry chain is “technology that can be replaced.” NPEX’s assets are scarce, Chainlink’s data is scarce—what about Dusk’s technology? If another privacy chain can also meet NPEX’s needs, then Dusk’s position won’t be as solid. #dusk $DUSK
Selective disclosure looks elegant, but the more I think about it, the more it feels like “moving” trust to a different place
In Dusk’s latest whitepaper, there’s a design called Moonlight: a public transaction layer running in parallel with a privacy layer. Institutions can choose visibility depending on the scenario—use the shielded layer when privacy is needed, and the public layer when transparency is required. Sounds flexible, right?
But think carefully: the very words “selective disclosure” imply that the decision-making power is not really in your hands. Who defines the disclosure rules? Who holds the verification permissions? If the compliance keys are in the hands of a few, then the difference between this system and permissioned finance may be only that it adds one more chain.
Dusk’s entire bet is to “embed audit authority directly into the protocol.” That’s clever—but it also means it turns the compliance risks facing privacy coins into a trust issue: the trust that whoever controls the compliance keys won’t abuse their power. You don’t need to trust the project team anymore; now you need to trust the key holders not to misuse their access. Trust has just been relocated. It’s still there. @Dusk
Some comments put it bluntly: “Selective disclosure transfers the trust bottleneck to whoever controls the compliance keys.” If the key controller is bribed, attacked, or simply doesn’t act, is your privacy still truly yours? A system that can open your privacy—no matter how well it locks it most of the time—is not secure enough for me.
Dusk’s design approach is indeed one of the few stories in the privacy space that’s aimed at institutions. But as a retail user, I need to think clearly: do I want a system that is private most of the time and can be opened when necessary, or one that is never openable? The former is called Dusk; the latter is called Monero. They’re both called privacy, but they’re fundamentally different in nature.
#dusk $DUSK
In Dusk’s latest whitepaper, there’s a design called Moonlight: a public transaction layer running in parallel with a privacy layer. Institutions can choose visibility depending on the scenario—use the shielded layer when privacy is needed, and the public layer when transparency is required. Sounds flexible, right?
But think carefully: the very words “selective disclosure” imply that the decision-making power is not really in your hands. Who defines the disclosure rules? Who holds the verification permissions? If the compliance keys are in the hands of a few, then the difference between this system and permissioned finance may be only that it adds one more chain.
Dusk’s entire bet is to “embed audit authority directly into the protocol.” That’s clever—but it also means it turns the compliance risks facing privacy coins into a trust issue: the trust that whoever controls the compliance keys won’t abuse their power. You don’t need to trust the project team anymore; now you need to trust the key holders not to misuse their access. Trust has just been relocated. It’s still there. @Dusk
Some comments put it bluntly: “Selective disclosure transfers the trust bottleneck to whoever controls the compliance keys.” If the key controller is bribed, attacked, or simply doesn’t act, is your privacy still truly yours? A system that can open your privacy—no matter how well it locks it most of the time—is not secure enough for me.
Dusk’s design approach is indeed one of the few stories in the privacy space that’s aimed at institutions. But as a retail user, I need to think clearly: do I want a system that is private most of the time and can be opened when necessary, or one that is never openable? The former is called Dusk; the latter is called Monero. They’re both called privacy, but they’re fundamentally different in nature.
#dusk $DUSK
Verified
Only 90% of additional staking takes effect immediately; the remaining 10% is locked. Who is this design meant to protect?
I recently read an article about someone’s firsthand experience staking DUSK, and two details mentioned there made me more and more uneasy.
First, when you add funds to an existing stake, only 90% becomes effective right away. The remaining 10% is in an inactive state—unless you completely cancel your staking, you can’t access it. If you put in 100, only 90 are helping you earn, while 10 get locked in an “unactivated” state. Want to move that 10%? You have to cancel all staking first, and then stake again. What else is this if not a trap? The money is stuck in the middle: you can’t use it, and you also can’t earn from it. You even have to go through the staking process again.
Second, staking requires going through 4320 blocks—about 12 hours—before it is officially counted toward consensus selection. Do you think once you deposit, you start earning right away? No—you have to wait half a day. By the time you finally enter consensus, others may have already taken away the rewards that should have been yours. In the crypto market, 12 hours is enough for a lot to happen, while your coins do nothing during that period. @Dusk
What’s even more frustrating is that the rewards don’t increase by a fixed APR every second. They are probabilistic—depending on consensus participation and your share of the total active staked amount. Staking doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to receive 22%. If network participation is high, your share gets diluted, and your actual returns may be far lower than the advertised numbers. Someone calculated it—your actual take-home might be even under 15%. The official marketing of 22% is just a ceiling. How much you can get depends on luck, timing, and overall network participation.
The project has always advertised 22% annualized, but in real operation—delayed effectiveness, probabilistic rewards, and the locked 10%—once you run through the whole process, ordinary users basically can’t figure out how much they will actually earn. If a typical user needs to read the documentation three times to understand how to stake, then that threshold can’t be explained as “complexity.” The more complex it is, the easier it is to hide things. I don’t know whether the team does this intentionally to make simple things complicated, but I do know that in the crypto world, complexity often means someone doesn’t want you to calculate things clearly. #dusk $DUSK
I recently read an article about someone’s firsthand experience staking DUSK, and two details mentioned there made me more and more uneasy.
First, when you add funds to an existing stake, only 90% becomes effective right away. The remaining 10% is in an inactive state—unless you completely cancel your staking, you can’t access it. If you put in 100, only 90 are helping you earn, while 10 get locked in an “unactivated” state. Want to move that 10%? You have to cancel all staking first, and then stake again. What else is this if not a trap? The money is stuck in the middle: you can’t use it, and you also can’t earn from it. You even have to go through the staking process again.
Second, staking requires going through 4320 blocks—about 12 hours—before it is officially counted toward consensus selection. Do you think once you deposit, you start earning right away? No—you have to wait half a day. By the time you finally enter consensus, others may have already taken away the rewards that should have been yours. In the crypto market, 12 hours is enough for a lot to happen, while your coins do nothing during that period. @Dusk
What’s even more frustrating is that the rewards don’t increase by a fixed APR every second. They are probabilistic—depending on consensus participation and your share of the total active staked amount. Staking doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to receive 22%. If network participation is high, your share gets diluted, and your actual returns may be far lower than the advertised numbers. Someone calculated it—your actual take-home might be even under 15%. The official marketing of 22% is just a ceiling. How much you can get depends on luck, timing, and overall network participation.
The project has always advertised 22% annualized, but in real operation—delayed effectiveness, probabilistic rewards, and the locked 10%—once you run through the whole process, ordinary users basically can’t figure out how much they will actually earn. If a typical user needs to read the documentation three times to understand how to stake, then that threshold can’t be explained as “complexity.” The more complex it is, the easier it is to hide things. I don’t know whether the team does this intentionally to make simple things complicated, but I do know that in the crypto world, complexity often means someone doesn’t want you to calculate things clearly. #dusk $DUSK
DUSK’s total supply is 1 billion, but it’s being minted endlessly—in other words, this has nothing to do with the “fixed total supply” I thought I understood.
I thought the total supply of DUSK was 1 billion coins, like most tokens—a fixed number. But on closer inspection, I realized that 1 billion is only the initial circulating supply. Block rewards are still being produced; every year, tens of millions of new coins are mined, and there’s no deflation mechanism—no burning, no buybacks. It’s just a supply that keeps increasing.
On top of that, about 170,000 new coins enter the market every day—tens of millions per year. The mainnet has only been running for less than a year, yet the circulating amount has already risen from the initial value to nearly 500 million. If this mining pace continues, then the 1 billion initial amount is only a starting point. The total supply will keep growing—there’s no ceiling.
The key issue is that where these new coins go is very concentrated. 80% of block rewards go directly to validators, and the rest goes to various pools. The DUSK held by retail users is diluted every day by these newly minted coins. Earning 22% from staking sounds high, but if you don’t stake, your holdings get diluted; if you do stake, you’re only earning part of the inflation allocation. @Dusk
A token with no deflation design, under continuous issuance pressure—what sustains its price? Demand. But where is Dusk’s demand? TVL is only in the millions, there are 4 ecosystem projects, and daily active users on-chain are fewer than 100. Supply keeps increasing, but demand hardly grows. DUSK dropped from 0.17 to 0.06—a 65% decline. This isn’t just market sentiment; it’s a real reflection of supply and demand.
Every time I look at the DUSK in my wallet, I’m reminded of a simple truth: in a system that keeps minting, holding still means you’re passively losing money. The 22% staking return only offsets inflation—and what that inflation rate actually is has never been transparently calculated and shown to retail users. #dusk $DUSK
I thought the total supply of DUSK was 1 billion coins, like most tokens—a fixed number. But on closer inspection, I realized that 1 billion is only the initial circulating supply. Block rewards are still being produced; every year, tens of millions of new coins are mined, and there’s no deflation mechanism—no burning, no buybacks. It’s just a supply that keeps increasing.
On top of that, about 170,000 new coins enter the market every day—tens of millions per year. The mainnet has only been running for less than a year, yet the circulating amount has already risen from the initial value to nearly 500 million. If this mining pace continues, then the 1 billion initial amount is only a starting point. The total supply will keep growing—there’s no ceiling.
The key issue is that where these new coins go is very concentrated. 80% of block rewards go directly to validators, and the rest goes to various pools. The DUSK held by retail users is diluted every day by these newly minted coins. Earning 22% from staking sounds high, but if you don’t stake, your holdings get diluted; if you do stake, you’re only earning part of the inflation allocation. @Dusk
A token with no deflation design, under continuous issuance pressure—what sustains its price? Demand. But where is Dusk’s demand? TVL is only in the millions, there are 4 ecosystem projects, and daily active users on-chain are fewer than 100. Supply keeps increasing, but demand hardly grows. DUSK dropped from 0.17 to 0.06—a 65% decline. This isn’t just market sentiment; it’s a real reflection of supply and demand.
Every time I look at the DUSK in my wallet, I’m reminded of a simple truth: in a system that keeps minting, holding still means you’re passively losing money. The 22% staking return only offsets inflation—and what that inflation rate actually is has never been transparently calculated and shown to retail users. #dusk $DUSK
It’s been half a year since the Dusk mainnet went live, and TVL is still stuck at a few million dollars
Dusk mainnet launched on January 7, 2026, and DuskEVM was released at the same time. It’s been more than half a year now—almost eight months.
Then I looked at its TVL data—still stuck at the level of a few million dollars, roughly between $3 million and $4 million. It’s “millions,” not “hundreds of millions.” For a Layer 1 that has been live for nearly eight months, having TVL in the millions is, frankly, pretty awkward. I compared it with other L1 projects: in the same period, Aptos broke $500 million in TVL within three months, and Sui was on a similar timeline. Dusk’s numbers are nowhere close to even their smallest fractions—I honestly don’t know what to say.
Some people might argue that Dusk is building in the privacy track, and privacy projects naturally have lower TVL. But privacy coins like Monero and Zcash also don’t have TVL either. They rely on value storage and payment use cases. Dusk aims to do “institution-grade privacy finance.” With TVL only in the millions, why would institutions come in? Without liquidity, who would trade? For an institution-focused chain, its TVL can’t even compete with the liquidity pools of an ordinary retail DEX—how does that make institutions feel secure to enter? @Dusk
Dusk’s narrative has always been quite sexy—“privacy + compliance + RWA.” Those three cards played together sound very high-end. But being “sexy” is one thing; actually delivering is another. TVL is the most direct metric to judge whether a chain has real users. I went through Dusk’s ecosystem project list, and the number of DApps you can name is very small; most are still in testnet stages. A few million in TVL already says it all—are there institutions using it? Are retail users using it? Are developers coming? The answers are probably all: not many. In reality, not much is running on it.
I’m not saying Dusk can’t succeed, but the mainnet has been live for almost eight months and TVL is still at this level. At the very least, it suggests that “institutional adoption” is happening much more slowly than expected. NPEX’s tokenized bonds are definitely a direction, but a chain’s valuation can’t be supported by just one partnership. If, after another six months, TVL is still only in the millions, I may need to re-evaluate. Let’s wait until TVL climbs into the hundreds of millions first. Right now, Dusk is still about one order of magnitude away from “institution-grade financial infrastructure,” and maybe even more than that.
#dusk $DUSK
Dusk mainnet launched on January 7, 2026, and DuskEVM was released at the same time. It’s been more than half a year now—almost eight months.
Then I looked at its TVL data—still stuck at the level of a few million dollars, roughly between $3 million and $4 million. It’s “millions,” not “hundreds of millions.” For a Layer 1 that has been live for nearly eight months, having TVL in the millions is, frankly, pretty awkward. I compared it with other L1 projects: in the same period, Aptos broke $500 million in TVL within three months, and Sui was on a similar timeline. Dusk’s numbers are nowhere close to even their smallest fractions—I honestly don’t know what to say.
Some people might argue that Dusk is building in the privacy track, and privacy projects naturally have lower TVL. But privacy coins like Monero and Zcash also don’t have TVL either. They rely on value storage and payment use cases. Dusk aims to do “institution-grade privacy finance.” With TVL only in the millions, why would institutions come in? Without liquidity, who would trade? For an institution-focused chain, its TVL can’t even compete with the liquidity pools of an ordinary retail DEX—how does that make institutions feel secure to enter? @Dusk
Dusk’s narrative has always been quite sexy—“privacy + compliance + RWA.” Those three cards played together sound very high-end. But being “sexy” is one thing; actually delivering is another. TVL is the most direct metric to judge whether a chain has real users. I went through Dusk’s ecosystem project list, and the number of DApps you can name is very small; most are still in testnet stages. A few million in TVL already says it all—are there institutions using it? Are retail users using it? Are developers coming? The answers are probably all: not many. In reality, not much is running on it.
I’m not saying Dusk can’t succeed, but the mainnet has been live for almost eight months and TVL is still at this level. At the very least, it suggests that “institutional adoption” is happening much more slowly than expected. NPEX’s tokenized bonds are definitely a direction, but a chain’s valuation can’t be supported by just one partnership. If, after another six months, TVL is still only in the millions, I may need to re-evaluate. Let’s wait until TVL climbs into the hundreds of millions first. Right now, Dusk is still about one order of magnitude away from “institution-grade financial infrastructure,” and maybe even more than that.
#dusk $DUSK
DUSK drops from 0.17 to 0.06, and the privacy narrative can’t save the price either
I opened a charting app to take a look at DUSK’s candlesticks. To be honest, I just felt like sighing. On July 2 it was $0.079, on July 17 $0.065, on July 25 $0.059, and on July 28 $0.06. In a month it fell nearly 25%—and from its high of 0.17, it’s been cut in half, then cut again. Every time I tell myself, “The privacy narrative + the RWA track is a long-term logic,” the candlestick chart drags me back to reality with another round of selloff.
What makes me even more uneasy is the circulating supply. DUSK has a total supply of 1 billion coins; currently about 496 million are in circulation—just a little over half. The other half hasn’t come out yet, and it unlocks every month. I went and checked a block explorer: each block issues 19.86 DUSK, and 80% goes directly to block producers. These new coins are being generated every day and flowing into the market every month, creating ongoing pressure on price. I tried to do the math: the DUSK locked only through staking simply can’t offset the sell pressure caused by block rewards. @Dusk
Some people say Dusk has strong fundamentals, that the privacy + RWA narrative is a long-term track, and that Dusk’s team is indeed working seriously—DuskEVM and the privacy primitive module are being pushed forward step by step. I’ll admit the narrative is fine, and the technology really is iterating. But as someone who holds DUSK, I can’t pretend I don’t care about the price. If a project’s story is great but the token keeps falling, why should I keep holding? I’m not an institution—I don’t have unlimited ammo, and my patience is limited too.
On June 12, Binance delisted the DUSK/BTC trading pair. Even though DUSK/USDT is still trading, the reduction in pairs is already a signal of liquidity shrinking. From my previous experience, after a trading pair is delisted, liquidity usually keeps tightening—price volatility gets bigger and more unpredictable. No matter how sexy the privacy narrative is, it can’t overcome the delisting of the BTC trading pair.
DUSK fell from 0.17 to 0.06—65% gone. A privacy chain aimed at institutions, yet the token gets repeatedly harvested in the retail market. I’m becoming less and less sure whether my holding is an investment or just sentiment. Sentiment can’t buy money in this market.
#dusk $DUSK
I opened a charting app to take a look at DUSK’s candlesticks. To be honest, I just felt like sighing. On July 2 it was $0.079, on July 17 $0.065, on July 25 $0.059, and on July 28 $0.06. In a month it fell nearly 25%—and from its high of 0.17, it’s been cut in half, then cut again. Every time I tell myself, “The privacy narrative + the RWA track is a long-term logic,” the candlestick chart drags me back to reality with another round of selloff.
What makes me even more uneasy is the circulating supply. DUSK has a total supply of 1 billion coins; currently about 496 million are in circulation—just a little over half. The other half hasn’t come out yet, and it unlocks every month. I went and checked a block explorer: each block issues 19.86 DUSK, and 80% goes directly to block producers. These new coins are being generated every day and flowing into the market every month, creating ongoing pressure on price. I tried to do the math: the DUSK locked only through staking simply can’t offset the sell pressure caused by block rewards. @Dusk
Some people say Dusk has strong fundamentals, that the privacy + RWA narrative is a long-term track, and that Dusk’s team is indeed working seriously—DuskEVM and the privacy primitive module are being pushed forward step by step. I’ll admit the narrative is fine, and the technology really is iterating. But as someone who holds DUSK, I can’t pretend I don’t care about the price. If a project’s story is great but the token keeps falling, why should I keep holding? I’m not an institution—I don’t have unlimited ammo, and my patience is limited too.
On June 12, Binance delisted the DUSK/BTC trading pair. Even though DUSK/USDT is still trading, the reduction in pairs is already a signal of liquidity shrinking. From my previous experience, after a trading pair is delisted, liquidity usually keeps tightening—price volatility gets bigger and more unpredictable. No matter how sexy the privacy narrative is, it can’t overcome the delisting of the BTC trading pair.
DUSK fell from 0.17 to 0.06—65% gone. A privacy chain aimed at institutions, yet the token gets repeatedly harvested in the retail market. I’m becoming less and less sure whether my holding is an investment or just sentiment. Sentiment can’t buy money in this market.
#dusk $DUSK
5 billion in TVL rented safety—who are Babylon’s customers really? I’ve thought about this for a long time.
I used to think Babylon was for BTC holders. Until one day I suddenly realized something—Babylon’s real customer is not retail users at all. Who uses Babylon’s security services? It’s PoS chains that need security anchoring, not people like you and me who stake BTC to earn.
Babylon’s website is very clear: “Allows any PoS chain to use Bitcoin as an economic security anchor.” Its core customers are PoS chains, not retail users. In Babylon’s economic model, retail users play the role of providing security collateral, not enjoying the service. PoS chains buy security from Babylon, and BTC stakers provide collateral to earn yield.
But I kept wondering: why would PoS chains buy Babylon’s security? They can just issue their own token and have validators stake it. Babylon says it “anchors PoS chains using the security of Bitcoin.” Bitcoin’s security is indeed the strongest—but what’s the cost? PoS chains have to hand their finality to you, which is essentially handing over the lifeline. How many projects would dare do that? If your chain is controlled by an external protocol, your validators would have to follow another set of rules too—would you feel comfortable with that?
Babylon plans to integrate with Aave to generate revenue, with an expected rollout in Q2 2026, but the integration is still under review. The project team itself also admits that it may not progress properly. If even the Aave integration hasn’t landed yet, how does Babylon get paid? @BabylonLabs_io
That’s the awkward part. Babylon’s customer is PoS chains, but the PoS chain customers haven’t arrived. LST projects (SolvProtocol, pSTAKE, etc.) package users’ BTC into LSTs and then stake into this system. Solv alone contributes more than 10,000 BTC. TVL is the “wholesale” rental capital brought in by LST projects—not a trust vote staked directly by retail users. If, in the future, more application chains need external security, Babylon could indeed become a security infrastructure connecting the BTC and PoS ecosystems—but “could” is the key word. It hasn’t done it yet. The PoS chain customers aren’t here, while retail users are already helping pay someone else’s rent.
Once Babylon’s PoS chain customers truly start paying, then we can talk about the security budget model. Right now, that 5 billion TVL is rented—and rented things can leave at any time.
#baby $BABY
I used to think Babylon was for BTC holders. Until one day I suddenly realized something—Babylon’s real customer is not retail users at all. Who uses Babylon’s security services? It’s PoS chains that need security anchoring, not people like you and me who stake BTC to earn.
Babylon’s website is very clear: “Allows any PoS chain to use Bitcoin as an economic security anchor.” Its core customers are PoS chains, not retail users. In Babylon’s economic model, retail users play the role of providing security collateral, not enjoying the service. PoS chains buy security from Babylon, and BTC stakers provide collateral to earn yield.
But I kept wondering: why would PoS chains buy Babylon’s security? They can just issue their own token and have validators stake it. Babylon says it “anchors PoS chains using the security of Bitcoin.” Bitcoin’s security is indeed the strongest—but what’s the cost? PoS chains have to hand their finality to you, which is essentially handing over the lifeline. How many projects would dare do that? If your chain is controlled by an external protocol, your validators would have to follow another set of rules too—would you feel comfortable with that?
Babylon plans to integrate with Aave to generate revenue, with an expected rollout in Q2 2026, but the integration is still under review. The project team itself also admits that it may not progress properly. If even the Aave integration hasn’t landed yet, how does Babylon get paid? @BabylonLabs_io
That’s the awkward part. Babylon’s customer is PoS chains, but the PoS chain customers haven’t arrived. LST projects (SolvProtocol, pSTAKE, etc.) package users’ BTC into LSTs and then stake into this system. Solv alone contributes more than 10,000 BTC. TVL is the “wholesale” rental capital brought in by LST projects—not a trust vote staked directly by retail users. If, in the future, more application chains need external security, Babylon could indeed become a security infrastructure connecting the BTC and PoS ecosystems—but “could” is the key word. It hasn’t done it yet. The PoS chain customers aren’t here, while retail users are already helping pay someone else’s rent.
Once Babylon’s PoS chain customers truly start paying, then we can talk about the security budget model. Right now, that 5 billion TVL is rented—and rented things can leave at any time.
#baby $BABY
The loophole in the slashing mechanism is what Babylon most deserves to be criticized for
Babylon’s slashing mechanism has always been the part I’m most concerned about.
In theory, it’s like this: if a validator misbehaves, the staked BTC gets slashed; if the cost of misbehavior is high enough, nobody would dare to act up. Perfect logic, right? But the audit report shows that Babylon’s slashing mechanism has a vulnerability: validators who are slashed can regain voting power through “pending delegations.”
Let me translate it plainly: a validator misbehaves, gets slashed, and should be kicked out forever. But if someone had already submitted a delegation to that validator before the slashing—while that delegation is still being processed—then after the slashing takes effect, when that delegation becomes active, the system doesn’t check whether the validator has already been slashed. As a result, the slashed validator regains voting power through that delegation and continues participating in consensus. Slashing—what a joke.
In Babylon’s April 2026 security research, four core vulnerabilities were disclosed, including a slashing-mechanism bypass. The project team did fix them. But the fact that problems were found in the code during the audit itself shows that even a professional auditing team spent a lot of time tracking down these flaws. What worries me even more is the timeline: the vulnerability was found in 2025 and fixed in 2026. What if someone discovered it during that period but didn’t report it? @BabylonLabs_io
Babylon has more than 50,000 BTC locked up, with a TVL of 5 billion USD. Once the slashing mechanism can be bypassed, misbehaving validators can keep participating in consensus and keep affecting the network’s security. Your BTC is staked, and you trust that the slashing mechanism will protect you—but the slashing mechanism itself has a bypass vulnerability. In that trust chain, one link is broken.
The slashing mechanism isn’t just window dressing; it’s the final line of defense in Babylon’s security model. If that line can be bypassed, then all the designs before it are just castles in the air. I know the bug is fixed, but if you fix one, what’s next? Code is written by people, and people make mistakes. I locked my BTC in, betting that it won’t happen again—but history tells me code always has bugs; it’s just that they haven’t been found yet. #baby $BABY
Babylon’s slashing mechanism has always been the part I’m most concerned about.
In theory, it’s like this: if a validator misbehaves, the staked BTC gets slashed; if the cost of misbehavior is high enough, nobody would dare to act up. Perfect logic, right? But the audit report shows that Babylon’s slashing mechanism has a vulnerability: validators who are slashed can regain voting power through “pending delegations.”
Let me translate it plainly: a validator misbehaves, gets slashed, and should be kicked out forever. But if someone had already submitted a delegation to that validator before the slashing—while that delegation is still being processed—then after the slashing takes effect, when that delegation becomes active, the system doesn’t check whether the validator has already been slashed. As a result, the slashed validator regains voting power through that delegation and continues participating in consensus. Slashing—what a joke.
In Babylon’s April 2026 security research, four core vulnerabilities were disclosed, including a slashing-mechanism bypass. The project team did fix them. But the fact that problems were found in the code during the audit itself shows that even a professional auditing team spent a lot of time tracking down these flaws. What worries me even more is the timeline: the vulnerability was found in 2025 and fixed in 2026. What if someone discovered it during that period but didn’t report it? @BabylonLabs_io
Babylon has more than 50,000 BTC locked up, with a TVL of 5 billion USD. Once the slashing mechanism can be bypassed, misbehaving validators can keep participating in consensus and keep affecting the network’s security. Your BTC is staked, and you trust that the slashing mechanism will protect you—but the slashing mechanism itself has a bypass vulnerability. In that trust chain, one link is broken.
The slashing mechanism isn’t just window dressing; it’s the final line of defense in Babylon’s security model. If that line can be bypassed, then all the designs before it are just castles in the air. I know the bug is fixed, but if you fix one, what’s next? Code is written by people, and people make mistakes. I locked my BTC in, betting that it won’t happen again—but history tells me code always has bugs; it’s just that they haven’t been found yet. #baby $BABY
A dream of 1,000,000 stakers—when you wake up, you see only 0.03%
Babylon’s marketing has always been great at telling stories: “1,000,000 Bitcoin holders can participate in staking,” and “Turn BTC from digital gold into productive assets.” The number 1,000,000 is very catchy, and paired with a 5 billion TVL, it looks lively and exciting. But if you do the math, you’ll know exactly how much retail investors can actually get from this story.
What retail investors can participate in offers a baseline staking yield of 0.03%. Lock 1 BTC for a year and you earn $18. What about gas fees? You have to pay Bitcoin network transaction fees at least twice—once to lock and once to unlock—totaling roughly $5 to $10. What about opportunity cost? During the staking period, you can’t trade or use that BTC. If the price moves against you, there’s nothing you can do. Once you deduct all of that, your $18 “earnings” may be reduced to almost nothing—or even turn into a loss. If BTC drops from 60,000 to 50,000 during that period, your unrealized loss is already $10,000, while that $18 yield is nowhere near enough to matter.
You might say, “I can stake more BTC.” Sure—if you have 10 BTC, you’d earn $180 a year. But among all Bitcoin holders, those with 10 BTC are extremely rare. Most Bitcoin holders have only between 0.01 and 1 BTC. For them, coming in means losing money. Babylon says it welcomes everyone, but the economic model has already filtered out retail users. @BabylonLabs_io
Some say you can go through co-staking. The threshold is 100 BTC—over $6 million—so retail investors simply can’t reach it. Others say you can buy LSTs—liquid staking tokens. But LSTs come with premium/discount pricing, contract risks, and additional fees. And the price volatility of LSTs themselves may already eat up all of your收益. When a vulnerability appeared in Babylon in January 2026, the liquidity pools for LSTs tightened instantly. Many users couldn’t exit. Is it worth taking on an entire stack of contract risk for that small extra bit of return?
Babylon’s marketing team put a lot of effort into the line “1,000,000 Bitcoin holders can participate,” but it doesn’t tell the whole truth—you can participate, but you won’t make money. For retail investors, a 0.03% return is a carefully packaged ceremony. TVL is for big players; the promotion is for retail investors. The dream of 1,000,000 stakers—when you wake up, you only see 0.03%.
#baby $BABY
Babylon’s marketing has always been great at telling stories: “1,000,000 Bitcoin holders can participate in staking,” and “Turn BTC from digital gold into productive assets.” The number 1,000,000 is very catchy, and paired with a 5 billion TVL, it looks lively and exciting. But if you do the math, you’ll know exactly how much retail investors can actually get from this story.
What retail investors can participate in offers a baseline staking yield of 0.03%. Lock 1 BTC for a year and you earn $18. What about gas fees? You have to pay Bitcoin network transaction fees at least twice—once to lock and once to unlock—totaling roughly $5 to $10. What about opportunity cost? During the staking period, you can’t trade or use that BTC. If the price moves against you, there’s nothing you can do. Once you deduct all of that, your $18 “earnings” may be reduced to almost nothing—or even turn into a loss. If BTC drops from 60,000 to 50,000 during that period, your unrealized loss is already $10,000, while that $18 yield is nowhere near enough to matter.
You might say, “I can stake more BTC.” Sure—if you have 10 BTC, you’d earn $180 a year. But among all Bitcoin holders, those with 10 BTC are extremely rare. Most Bitcoin holders have only between 0.01 and 1 BTC. For them, coming in means losing money. Babylon says it welcomes everyone, but the economic model has already filtered out retail users. @BabylonLabs_io
Some say you can go through co-staking. The threshold is 100 BTC—over $6 million—so retail investors simply can’t reach it. Others say you can buy LSTs—liquid staking tokens. But LSTs come with premium/discount pricing, contract risks, and additional fees. And the price volatility of LSTs themselves may already eat up all of your收益. When a vulnerability appeared in Babylon in January 2026, the liquidity pools for LSTs tightened instantly. Many users couldn’t exit. Is it worth taking on an entire stack of contract risk for that small extra bit of return?
Babylon’s marketing team put a lot of effort into the line “1,000,000 Bitcoin holders can participate,” but it doesn’t tell the whole truth—you can participate, but you won’t make money. For retail investors, a 0.03% return is a carefully packaged ceremony. TVL is for big players; the promotion is for retail investors. The dream of 1,000,000 stakers—when you wake up, you only see 0.03%.
#baby $BABY
How long can the first-mover advantage last? The latecomers are already eyeing the juicy BTC staking market
Babylon is indeed the pioneer in the Bitcoin staking track. It has raised $33.3 million in total funding, with a16z leading the round, Binance Labs showing support, and its TVL exceeding $5 billion. The first-mover advantage is definitely clear—but this “fat meat” is already being targeted by many.
On September 16—today—Firefly officially goes live, offering a BTCfi yield pool of up to $2 million and an airdrop campaign. Looking further back, Binance has already launched Babylon’s BNSOL and SolvBTC.BNB, and LST liquidity is expanding rapidly. While the market size for BTCFi continues to grow, the competitive landscape is shifting from “Babylon alone dominates” to “many players jostle for supremacy.”
One data point is worth noting: in Babylon’s current TVL, about 80% comes from liquid staking token projects, and only 20% comes from native BTC stakers. This means Babylon’s growth is highly dependent on LST projects “wholesale” BTC to it, rather than retail users staking directly. If these LST projects start supporting other BTC staking protocols, will Babylon’s TVL decline along with it? The answer is yes. @BabylonLabs_io
SolvProtocol is already working on diversification. Beyond Babylon, Solv is exploring other sources of BTC yield. If Solv moves a portion of BTC from Babylon to other protocols, Babylon’s TVL will face direct pressure. The first-mover advantage gives Babylon a window of time, but that window is narrowing.
I’m not saying Babylon will be replaced, but the gap between being the “only option” and being the “best option” is huge. If the yield offered by latecomers is higher, the thresholds are lower, and the user experience is better, users will move without hesitation. BTC chases profit, not loyalty. Once Firefly and other competitors ramp up, whether Babylon can still hold its $5 billion TVL will be the real test. How long the first-mover advantage can last depends on how long it takes latecomers to get the product right. Judging by the current pace of competition, this window may be shorter than everyone thinks.
#baby $BABY
Babylon is indeed the pioneer in the Bitcoin staking track. It has raised $33.3 million in total funding, with a16z leading the round, Binance Labs showing support, and its TVL exceeding $5 billion. The first-mover advantage is definitely clear—but this “fat meat” is already being targeted by many.
On September 16—today—Firefly officially goes live, offering a BTCfi yield pool of up to $2 million and an airdrop campaign. Looking further back, Binance has already launched Babylon’s BNSOL and SolvBTC.BNB, and LST liquidity is expanding rapidly. While the market size for BTCFi continues to grow, the competitive landscape is shifting from “Babylon alone dominates” to “many players jostle for supremacy.”
One data point is worth noting: in Babylon’s current TVL, about 80% comes from liquid staking token projects, and only 20% comes from native BTC stakers. This means Babylon’s growth is highly dependent on LST projects “wholesale” BTC to it, rather than retail users staking directly. If these LST projects start supporting other BTC staking protocols, will Babylon’s TVL decline along with it? The answer is yes. @BabylonLabs_io
SolvProtocol is already working on diversification. Beyond Babylon, Solv is exploring other sources of BTC yield. If Solv moves a portion of BTC from Babylon to other protocols, Babylon’s TVL will face direct pressure. The first-mover advantage gives Babylon a window of time, but that window is narrowing.
I’m not saying Babylon will be replaced, but the gap between being the “only option” and being the “best option” is huge. If the yield offered by latecomers is higher, the thresholds are lower, and the user experience is better, users will move without hesitation. BTC chases profit, not loyalty. Once Firefly and other competitors ramp up, whether Babylon can still hold its $5 billion TVL will be the real test. How long the first-mover advantage can last depends on how long it takes latecomers to get the product right. Judging by the current pace of competition, this window may be shorter than everyone thinks.
#baby $BABY
Some platform has integrated Babylon, and the annualized return of 1% still has to be locked for 7 days
On June 20, a certain firm announced the launch of a Bitcoin staking service based on Babylon. Users don’t need to cross-chain or wrap anything; the BTC stays on the Bitcoin mainnet. With Taproot time-lock custody, users keep their assets secure. This is the first BTC staking solution supported by a mainstream exchange that doesn’t require wrapping. Sounds great, right?
Then you look closely at the terms: the maximum annualized yield is only 1%. That’s much higher than Babylon’s native 0.03%, but is it exchange-subsidized, or a sustainable source of earnings? The rewards are paid in BABY, and BABY’s price has already fallen from 0.17 at ATH to 0.013—down 92%. If BABY keeps dropping, your 1% annualized yield might still not even cover the decline. Assuming BTC is worth $60,000, 1% annualized is $600—sounds okay. But if BABY’s price drops another 20%, the dollar value you actually receive will shrink to just $480. Your purchasing power evaporates before you even get the yield.
Another catch: the staking is subject to an unbonding period of about 7 days. During those 7 days, you can’t trade the BTC or withdraw it, and no rewards accrue. If the market suddenly crashes, you can only watch—there’s no way to run. Everyone knows how violently BTC can swing; 7 days is enough for $60,000 to fall to $50,000. To chase that 1% annualized yield, you have to bet that BTC won’t crash within 7 days, and also bet that BABY won’t keep falling. No matter how you do the math, it’s not worth it. @BabylonLabs_io
More painful still: the platform’s BTC staking is open only to the United States (excluding multiple states), the UK, Australia, and the UAE. Most regions can’t use it at all. With a mainstream exchange integrated, the amount of “meat” retail users get is painfully small. I checked the platform’s compliance documents: in the list of service regions for this product, New York and Texas are explicitly excluded—yet those are exactly the two states with the largest number of crypto users in the US. This further suggests that the platform is well aware of the compliance risk for this product and can only launch it in a handful of jurisdictions with the loosest regulation.
A mainstream exchange integration, but the “meat” retail users get is pitiful. Whales enjoy the yield, while retail users take on the lock-up risk. Babylon’s $5 billion TVL already says everything—this game was never designed for retail users from the start. You lock BTC for 7 days and risk a sudden plunge; meanwhile, the big whales lock for a year to wait and then dump the BABY when it’s convenient. Who’s betting and who’s earning should be obvious.
#baby $BABY
On June 20, a certain firm announced the launch of a Bitcoin staking service based on Babylon. Users don’t need to cross-chain or wrap anything; the BTC stays on the Bitcoin mainnet. With Taproot time-lock custody, users keep their assets secure. This is the first BTC staking solution supported by a mainstream exchange that doesn’t require wrapping. Sounds great, right?
Then you look closely at the terms: the maximum annualized yield is only 1%. That’s much higher than Babylon’s native 0.03%, but is it exchange-subsidized, or a sustainable source of earnings? The rewards are paid in BABY, and BABY’s price has already fallen from 0.17 at ATH to 0.013—down 92%. If BABY keeps dropping, your 1% annualized yield might still not even cover the decline. Assuming BTC is worth $60,000, 1% annualized is $600—sounds okay. But if BABY’s price drops another 20%, the dollar value you actually receive will shrink to just $480. Your purchasing power evaporates before you even get the yield.
Another catch: the staking is subject to an unbonding period of about 7 days. During those 7 days, you can’t trade the BTC or withdraw it, and no rewards accrue. If the market suddenly crashes, you can only watch—there’s no way to run. Everyone knows how violently BTC can swing; 7 days is enough for $60,000 to fall to $50,000. To chase that 1% annualized yield, you have to bet that BTC won’t crash within 7 days, and also bet that BABY won’t keep falling. No matter how you do the math, it’s not worth it. @BabylonLabs_io
More painful still: the platform’s BTC staking is open only to the United States (excluding multiple states), the UK, Australia, and the UAE. Most regions can’t use it at all. With a mainstream exchange integrated, the amount of “meat” retail users get is painfully small. I checked the platform’s compliance documents: in the list of service regions for this product, New York and Texas are explicitly excluded—yet those are exactly the two states with the largest number of crypto users in the US. This further suggests that the platform is well aware of the compliance risk for this product and can only launch it in a handful of jurisdictions with the loosest regulation.
A mainstream exchange integration, but the “meat” retail users get is pitiful. Whales enjoy the yield, while retail users take on the lock-up risk. Babylon’s $5 billion TVL already says everything—this game was never designed for retail users from the start. You lock BTC for 7 days and risk a sudden plunge; meanwhile, the big whales lock for a year to wait and then dump the BABY when it’s convenient. Who’s betting and who’s earning should be obvious.
#baby $BABY
A code vulnerability was exposed half a year ago—has it been fixed?
In early 2026, Babylon’s staking code was reported to have a BLS voting extension vulnerability. A malicious validator could create a divergence by omitting the block hash field, slowing down block production and even causing the program to crash. The flaw sits on a critical path of the consensus mechanism; once exploited, the security of the entire network would be put at risk. This isn’t a fringe minor bug—it’s a serious vulnerability that can directly determine the network’s survival.
At the time, the project team’s response was “it has been fixed.” But the fact that there was a vulnerability in the code is itself a signal—Babylon’s code is not a solid, unbreakable block. What worries me even more is that this vulnerability was discovered by an external anonymous contributor, not by the project’s own internal audit team. If an outsider hadn’t found it, would this vulnerability have stayed buried in the code forever? For a protocol’s core consensus code to be found as a serious vulnerability only after an external anonymous person submits an issue suggests the project’s own audit process may have blind spots.
Babylon’s validator nodes are only run by a handful of large players. If any one of those nodes is maliciously exploited using this vulnerability—or worse, if several nodes collude—the network’s consensus could be threatened. The vulnerability was discovered in January 2026. Now it’s been half a year—have there been any new vulnerabilities? How many rounds of code review has the code undergone? Have the audit reports been made public? No one has answered these questions. I remember the team promised to conduct more comprehensive external audits. But half a year has passed, and I haven’t seen any public updates to audit reports. If audits were done, why weren’t they published? If they weren’t done, where did the promise go? @BabylonLabs_io
BABY’s price has fallen from its all-time high of 0.17 to 0.013—a drop of more than 92%. The market’s “vote with its feet” is already very clear. When there’s a code problem and the price drops like this, large holders are staking BTC to sell off BABY and other assets. Retail investors rush in, betting that the protocol won’t have issues again—that the price won’t keep falling. But how likely is this bet to pay off? I asked in the community, “When will the audit report be published?” No one replied, and the post sank. If a project doesn’t even dare to publish an audit report, I wouldn’t put my money into it. #baby $BABY
In early 2026, Babylon’s staking code was reported to have a BLS voting extension vulnerability. A malicious validator could create a divergence by omitting the block hash field, slowing down block production and even causing the program to crash. The flaw sits on a critical path of the consensus mechanism; once exploited, the security of the entire network would be put at risk. This isn’t a fringe minor bug—it’s a serious vulnerability that can directly determine the network’s survival.
At the time, the project team’s response was “it has been fixed.” But the fact that there was a vulnerability in the code is itself a signal—Babylon’s code is not a solid, unbreakable block. What worries me even more is that this vulnerability was discovered by an external anonymous contributor, not by the project’s own internal audit team. If an outsider hadn’t found it, would this vulnerability have stayed buried in the code forever? For a protocol’s core consensus code to be found as a serious vulnerability only after an external anonymous person submits an issue suggests the project’s own audit process may have blind spots.
Babylon’s validator nodes are only run by a handful of large players. If any one of those nodes is maliciously exploited using this vulnerability—or worse, if several nodes collude—the network’s consensus could be threatened. The vulnerability was discovered in January 2026. Now it’s been half a year—have there been any new vulnerabilities? How many rounds of code review has the code undergone? Have the audit reports been made public? No one has answered these questions. I remember the team promised to conduct more comprehensive external audits. But half a year has passed, and I haven’t seen any public updates to audit reports. If audits were done, why weren’t they published? If they weren’t done, where did the promise go? @BabylonLabs_io
BABY’s price has fallen from its all-time high of 0.17 to 0.013—a drop of more than 92%. The market’s “vote with its feet” is already very clear. When there’s a code problem and the price drops like this, large holders are staking BTC to sell off BABY and other assets. Retail investors rush in, betting that the protocol won’t have issues again—that the price won’t keep falling. But how likely is this bet to pay off? I asked in the community, “When will the audit report be published?” No one replied, and the post sank. If a project doesn’t even dare to publish an audit report, I wouldn’t put my money into it. #baby $BABY
Half a year has passed—how many people have truly made money on Babylon?
Babylon mainnet has been live for almost half a year. TVL has surged to $5 billion, and it locks over 50,000 BTC. All kinds of data say it’s been extremely successful, but I keep asking a more direct question: how many ordinary users have actually made money?
I’ve searched through the community, Twitter, and major forums, and I can hardly find any screenshots from retail users showing substantial returns earned by staking on Babylon. What you can see are large-staker accounts’ big staking records—whales getting the early allocation, whales doing co-staking. Retail users’ benchmark yield of 0.03% may not even cover the Gas fees. If the vast majority of users are losing money or just barely breaking even, then who is this TVL growth really serving? @BabylonLabs_io
Babylon’s revenue model is essentially a token distribution game. BTC stakers earn BABY, and BABY comes from inflation. Early entrants profit from token price premiums created by later users locking up, rather than from real revenue generated by the protocol itself. This is a classic “greater-fool” logic: as long as new people keep coming in to stake, early participants can earn. But if BTC staking growth slows down, or the market loses interest in BABY—where does the yield come from?
What worries me more is that nobody knows when those whales will exit. If they collectively withdraw their capital, Babylon’s TVL could collapse instantly. The price of BABY held by retail users is already down 92%—then how much would be left?
I’m not saying Babylon is a scam, but the question of “how many people really made money” is something current data can’t answer. If most people are losing money, then the protocol’s long-term sustainability is worth doubting. Once I truly see a few screenshots of ordinary users’ profits—not institutional and whale staking records—then I’ll consider putting my BTC in.
#baby $BABY
Babylon mainnet has been live for almost half a year. TVL has surged to $5 billion, and it locks over 50,000 BTC. All kinds of data say it’s been extremely successful, but I keep asking a more direct question: how many ordinary users have actually made money?
I’ve searched through the community, Twitter, and major forums, and I can hardly find any screenshots from retail users showing substantial returns earned by staking on Babylon. What you can see are large-staker accounts’ big staking records—whales getting the early allocation, whales doing co-staking. Retail users’ benchmark yield of 0.03% may not even cover the Gas fees. If the vast majority of users are losing money or just barely breaking even, then who is this TVL growth really serving? @BabylonLabs_io
Babylon’s revenue model is essentially a token distribution game. BTC stakers earn BABY, and BABY comes from inflation. Early entrants profit from token price premiums created by later users locking up, rather than from real revenue generated by the protocol itself. This is a classic “greater-fool” logic: as long as new people keep coming in to stake, early participants can earn. But if BTC staking growth slows down, or the market loses interest in BABY—where does the yield come from?
What worries me more is that nobody knows when those whales will exit. If they collectively withdraw their capital, Babylon’s TVL could collapse instantly. The price of BABY held by retail users is already down 92%—then how much would be left?
I’m not saying Babylon is a scam, but the question of “how many people really made money” is something current data can’t answer. If most people are losing money, then the protocol’s long-term sustainability is worth doubting. Once I truly see a few screenshots of ordinary users’ profits—not institutional and whale staking records—then I’ll consider putting my BTC in.
#baby $BABY
Cap-1 hasn't run smoothly yet, and now Cap-2 is coming—I still haven't figured out how to unbind the coins I locked previously.
The Babylon mainnet Phase 1 Cap-2 will be launched in the second week of October. Of the 1,000 BTC staking quota opened in Cap-1, about 80% comes from liquid staking token projects, and only 20% comes from native stakers. 80% is institutional, 20% is retail—and that ratio alone already says a lot.
But what worries me even more is the handling of Cap-1 afterward. Cap-1 has a staking overflow of 369 BTC. Users need to解除绑定 (unbind) and withdraw the overflowed staked funds. I looked around in the community, and many people were asking the same question: “How do you unbind?” The interface isn’t obvious, and the official guidance is scattered across different documents and tweets—there’s no single, unified place to perform the operation.
That means I have to manually unbind before Cap-2 goes live, and then restake into the new pool. During the unbinding process, is there a Gas cost? Is there a time window where you lose potential earnings? Is there a chance that, if you make an operational mistake in the middle, your lock period could be extended? I’ve gone through the documents several times, but still couldn’t find clear answers.
Babylon’s mainnet progresses in three stages: Stage 1 locks BTC, Stage 2 activates the Babylon PoS chain, and Stage 3 enables multi-staking of BTC. Cap-2 is only the second round of Stage 1. Even Stage 1 hasn’t finished yet—there are even more complex Stage 2 and Stage 3 ahead. Each step forward increases code complexity, and the probability of bugs increases too. @BabylonLabs_io
In January 2026, Babylon’s staking code was reported to have had a BLS voting extension vulnerability. Even though it wasn’t exploited, the fact that the code had issues is itself a signal. The more complex the system, the higher the chance of things going wrong. Before Phase 1 is even complete, they’re rushing to push Cap-2. I just want to ask one thing: Have the issues exposed in Cap-1 been fixed? If they haven’t been fully fixed, will Cap-2 amplify the problems? Retail users are already getting dizzy with Cap-1—will Cap-2’s process be even more complicated? The project team says Cap-2 will support more Bitcoin L2s and staking protocol integrations. That sounds great, but for ordinary users it means more steps, more fees, and more room for mistakes.
If you’re getting ready to participate in Cap-2, my advice is: first make sure you understand one thing—what is the staking status of your Cap-1, and whether you need to unbind first. #baby $BABY
The Babylon mainnet Phase 1 Cap-2 will be launched in the second week of October. Of the 1,000 BTC staking quota opened in Cap-1, about 80% comes from liquid staking token projects, and only 20% comes from native stakers. 80% is institutional, 20% is retail—and that ratio alone already says a lot.
But what worries me even more is the handling of Cap-1 afterward. Cap-1 has a staking overflow of 369 BTC. Users need to解除绑定 (unbind) and withdraw the overflowed staked funds. I looked around in the community, and many people were asking the same question: “How do you unbind?” The interface isn’t obvious, and the official guidance is scattered across different documents and tweets—there’s no single, unified place to perform the operation.
That means I have to manually unbind before Cap-2 goes live, and then restake into the new pool. During the unbinding process, is there a Gas cost? Is there a time window where you lose potential earnings? Is there a chance that, if you make an operational mistake in the middle, your lock period could be extended? I’ve gone through the documents several times, but still couldn’t find clear answers.
Babylon’s mainnet progresses in three stages: Stage 1 locks BTC, Stage 2 activates the Babylon PoS chain, and Stage 3 enables multi-staking of BTC. Cap-2 is only the second round of Stage 1. Even Stage 1 hasn’t finished yet—there are even more complex Stage 2 and Stage 3 ahead. Each step forward increases code complexity, and the probability of bugs increases too. @BabylonLabs_io
In January 2026, Babylon’s staking code was reported to have had a BLS voting extension vulnerability. Even though it wasn’t exploited, the fact that the code had issues is itself a signal. The more complex the system, the higher the chance of things going wrong. Before Phase 1 is even complete, they’re rushing to push Cap-2. I just want to ask one thing: Have the issues exposed in Cap-1 been fixed? If they haven’t been fully fixed, will Cap-2 amplify the problems? Retail users are already getting dizzy with Cap-1—will Cap-2’s process be even more complicated? The project team says Cap-2 will support more Bitcoin L2s and staking protocol integrations. That sounds great, but for ordinary users it means more steps, more fees, and more room for mistakes.
If you’re getting ready to participate in Cap-2, my advice is: first make sure you understand one thing—what is the staking status of your Cap-1, and whether you need to unbind first. #baby $BABY
In Solv’s TVL, maybe 70% of the 19,000 BTC are actually from Babylon
I recently looked through the data for Solv Protocol, and the more I looked, the more something seemed off.
Solv’s total TVL has already exceeded 19,000 BTC—higher even than the TVL of chains like Arbitrum and Polygon. The numbers are very convincing, but think about it a bit more: where do Solv’s BTC staking yield returns come from? The answer is Babylon. The underlying layer of Solv’s BTC staking products is Babylon’s staking protocol. Solv’s TVL has surged so aggressively in essence because Babylon’s staking demand is driving it. @BabylonLabs_io
This leads to a subtle question: if Babylon’s yield drops, or a security incident occurs, will Solv’s TVL collapse along with it? The answer is yes. Solv’s TVL is highly dependent on Babylon, and Babylon’s TVL is highly dependent on BTC staking. If any link in this chain has a problem, the whole system will be hit.
Solv has also done some diversification, including exploring BTC L2. But to be honest, Solv’s main growth engine is still Babylon for now. I checked the structure of Solv’s staking products, and most of the high-yield offerings are tied to Babylon’s co-staking. If anything happens on Babylon’s side, Solv users may withdraw in large numbers.
What’s even more subtle is that the relationship between Solv and Babylon is a bit of a “mutual lock-in.” Solv brings Babylon a large amount of BTC staking volume, and Babylon brings Solv the source of its yields. But if one of them has issues, the other will be dragged down too. In a bull market, this kind of bundling relationship looks great; in a bear market, it could be like dominoes. #baby $BABY
I’m not saying Solv or Babylon will definitely have problems, but a large portion of Solv’s TVL data is provided by Babylon. When looking at Solv’s numbers, it’s best to break them apart—what’s growth from its own business, and what’s Babylon’s traffic spillover. If Babylon runs into trouble, can Solv’s TVL hold up? No one can answer that question right now, but it’s worth thinking through.
#baby $BABY
I recently looked through the data for Solv Protocol, and the more I looked, the more something seemed off.
Solv’s total TVL has already exceeded 19,000 BTC—higher even than the TVL of chains like Arbitrum and Polygon. The numbers are very convincing, but think about it a bit more: where do Solv’s BTC staking yield returns come from? The answer is Babylon. The underlying layer of Solv’s BTC staking products is Babylon’s staking protocol. Solv’s TVL has surged so aggressively in essence because Babylon’s staking demand is driving it. @BabylonLabs_io
This leads to a subtle question: if Babylon’s yield drops, or a security incident occurs, will Solv’s TVL collapse along with it? The answer is yes. Solv’s TVL is highly dependent on Babylon, and Babylon’s TVL is highly dependent on BTC staking. If any link in this chain has a problem, the whole system will be hit.
Solv has also done some diversification, including exploring BTC L2. But to be honest, Solv’s main growth engine is still Babylon for now. I checked the structure of Solv’s staking products, and most of the high-yield offerings are tied to Babylon’s co-staking. If anything happens on Babylon’s side, Solv users may withdraw in large numbers.
What’s even more subtle is that the relationship between Solv and Babylon is a bit of a “mutual lock-in.” Solv brings Babylon a large amount of BTC staking volume, and Babylon brings Solv the source of its yields. But if one of them has issues, the other will be dragged down too. In a bull market, this kind of bundling relationship looks great; in a bear market, it could be like dominoes. #baby $BABY
I’m not saying Solv or Babylon will definitely have problems, but a large portion of Solv’s TVL data is provided by Babylon. When looking at Solv’s numbers, it’s best to break them apart—what’s growth from its own business, and what’s Babylon’s traffic spillover. If Babylon runs into trouble, can Solv’s TVL hold up? No one can answer that question right now, but it’s worth thinking through.
#baby $BABY
A threshold of 100 BTC for shared staking precisely filters out retail investors
Babylon’s BTC staking mainly comes in two ways: standard staking and shared staking. Standard staking means simply locking BTC to earn BABY, but many people don’t know that shared staking comes with extra BABY rewards and accelerated unlocks.
What’s the problem? Shared staking requires locking 100 BTC along with the corresponding amount of BABY. This threshold directly keeps 99% of retail investors out of the door. 100 BTC, at today’s prices, is worth over 6 million USD. @BabylonLabs_io
So what does that mean? It means Babylon’s truly high-yield pool is prepared for whales. If you only have 0.1 BTC, staking it gets you a 0.03% return—basically nothing. But those whales who lock 100 BTC take most of the token rewards and become the group that truly reaps the benefits.
I’m not saying the project team is intentionally discriminating against retail investors, but the 100 BTC threshold does make me feel that when Babylon’s economic model was designed, institutional users were the priority, while retail investors were just along for the ride. Among Bitcoin holders, only a tiny fraction have more than 100 BTC; most people have only 0.01 to 1 BTC. If you’re in that range too, I suggest you do the math first: do the returns from locking cover your withdrawal fees and opportunity cost?
Babylon’s narrative is “letting all Bitcoin holders participate in staking,” but in practice, what retail investors can participate in is only standard staking with a yield so low it’s practically negligible. The high-yield door of shared staking is open only to whales. For whom this ecosystem is actually designed—I think it’s already very clear.
#baby $BABY
Babylon’s BTC staking mainly comes in two ways: standard staking and shared staking. Standard staking means simply locking BTC to earn BABY, but many people don’t know that shared staking comes with extra BABY rewards and accelerated unlocks.
What’s the problem? Shared staking requires locking 100 BTC along with the corresponding amount of BABY. This threshold directly keeps 99% of retail investors out of the door. 100 BTC, at today’s prices, is worth over 6 million USD. @BabylonLabs_io
So what does that mean? It means Babylon’s truly high-yield pool is prepared for whales. If you only have 0.1 BTC, staking it gets you a 0.03% return—basically nothing. But those whales who lock 100 BTC take most of the token rewards and become the group that truly reaps the benefits.
I’m not saying the project team is intentionally discriminating against retail investors, but the 100 BTC threshold does make me feel that when Babylon’s economic model was designed, institutional users were the priority, while retail investors were just along for the ride. Among Bitcoin holders, only a tiny fraction have more than 100 BTC; most people have only 0.01 to 1 BTC. If you’re in that range too, I suggest you do the math first: do the returns from locking cover your withdrawal fees and opportunity cost?
Babylon’s narrative is “letting all Bitcoin holders participate in staking,” but in practice, what retail investors can participate in is only standard staking with a yield so low it’s practically negligible. The high-yield door of shared staking is open only to whales. For whom this ecosystem is actually designed—I think it’s already very clear.
#baby $BABY
Binance Labs invested in Babylon, and that made me look twice.
Let me tell you something real.
Last year there was a project that did huge marketing—every day on Twitter people were shouting “some big firm invested in it.” I believed them and went in to play for two months. Later, I checked that so-called “investment.” It turned out to be nothing more than an internship photo: a junior from the big firm took a picture with the project team and posted a tweet. That was it.
So when I saw the news that “Binance Labs announces it has invested in Babylon,” that string in my mind got pulled tight again.
But this time I went digging seriously.
@BabylonLabs_io
What Binance Labs invested in is Babylon’s Bitcoin restaking infrastructure. The core selling point of this project is something I talked about before—no bridges, no wrappers, no custody. It directly lets Bitcoin holders lock coins on the Bitcoin mainnet to provide security guarantees for other PoS chains.
Why would Binance Labs invest in this? I thought about it, and it might be related to a few factors.
First, the Bitcoin restaking track is still relatively blank right now. In the past, Bitcoin’s uses were basically a handful of things: hold it, sell it, or lend it out. There aren’t many projects that can “stake and earn,” and even fewer that can truly do it “without custody.” Babylon is one of the few that has really managed to make this happen.
Second, Babylon’s technical approach aligns well with Binance’s own wallet strategy. Users can participate in Babylon’s staking directly through Binance’s Web3 wallet. That means Binance doesn’t need to build its own Bitcoin staking infrastructure—it can simply plug into Babylon. Easy.
Third, Babylon has already been integrated with mainstream DeFi protocols like Aave. Bitcoin can be used directly as collateral to borrow money, without wrapping or cross-chain moves. The imagination space for this scenario is huge.
But I also noticed the risks.
Babylon’s mainnet is already live, but it’s still a way from full operation. Right now, it’s mainly in the coin-locking phase, and the real yield hasn’t started being distributed at large scale yet. If you jump in and stake now, it may take a while before you actually see the money coming back.
Also, the price of the BABY token can swing quite a lot. I looked at historical data—at one point it pulled back a lot from its highs. Even though there are signs of recovery recently, that mid-way pullback probably made many people uncomfortable for a bit.
#baby $BABY
Let me tell you something real.
Last year there was a project that did huge marketing—every day on Twitter people were shouting “some big firm invested in it.” I believed them and went in to play for two months. Later, I checked that so-called “investment.” It turned out to be nothing more than an internship photo: a junior from the big firm took a picture with the project team and posted a tweet. That was it.
So when I saw the news that “Binance Labs announces it has invested in Babylon,” that string in my mind got pulled tight again.
But this time I went digging seriously.
@BabylonLabs_io
What Binance Labs invested in is Babylon’s Bitcoin restaking infrastructure. The core selling point of this project is something I talked about before—no bridges, no wrappers, no custody. It directly lets Bitcoin holders lock coins on the Bitcoin mainnet to provide security guarantees for other PoS chains.
Why would Binance Labs invest in this? I thought about it, and it might be related to a few factors.
First, the Bitcoin restaking track is still relatively blank right now. In the past, Bitcoin’s uses were basically a handful of things: hold it, sell it, or lend it out. There aren’t many projects that can “stake and earn,” and even fewer that can truly do it “without custody.” Babylon is one of the few that has really managed to make this happen.
Second, Babylon’s technical approach aligns well with Binance’s own wallet strategy. Users can participate in Babylon’s staking directly through Binance’s Web3 wallet. That means Binance doesn’t need to build its own Bitcoin staking infrastructure—it can simply plug into Babylon. Easy.
Third, Babylon has already been integrated with mainstream DeFi protocols like Aave. Bitcoin can be used directly as collateral to borrow money, without wrapping or cross-chain moves. The imagination space for this scenario is huge.
But I also noticed the risks.
Babylon’s mainnet is already live, but it’s still a way from full operation. Right now, it’s mainly in the coin-locking phase, and the real yield hasn’t started being distributed at large scale yet. If you jump in and stake now, it may take a while before you actually see the money coming back.
Also, the price of the BABY token can swing quite a lot. I looked at historical data—at one point it pulled back a lot from its highs. Even though there are signs of recovery recently, that mid-way pullback probably made many people uncomfortable for a bit.
#baby $BABY
Study
Binance Blog
·
--
Binance Dual Investment Update: Earn Interest & Trade Smarter
Main TakeawaysBinance’s Dual Investment allows you to buy or sell crypto at a predetermined price on a future date, earning interest regardless of market direction, and eliminating trading fees for filled orders.Our recent revamp enhances the user experience with streamlined asset selection, simplified settlement date viewing, and a more efficient subscription process.Built for both new and seasoned users, the Dual Investment update delivers a more intuitive product — with the goal of making crypto more accessible.This is a general announcement. Products and services referred to here may not be available in your region.In an ever-evolving digital landscape, our recent Dual Investment product update signifies our commitment to constant improvement and responsiveness to user feedback. This revamp focuses on enhancing user experience through simplification and efficiency, aiming to make crypto even more accessible and understandable. But before we delve into the specifics of these changes, it’s also a good time to revisit the fundamentals of Dual Investment, ensuring a solid foundation for both new and seasoned users interested in exploring this update.What is Dual Investment?Dual Investment combines the potential for earning interest with the flexibility of setting limit orders for cryptocurrencies. This means you commit to buying or selling a digital asset at a predetermined price on a specific future date. The unique appeal of Dual Investment lies in its ability to let investors earn passive income — regardless of market direction — while waiting for their target buy or sell conditions to be met. The Mechanics of ‘Buy Low’ and ‘Sell High’ ProductsLet’s break down the mechanics:‘Buy Low' Product: This allows you to set a target price below the current market price at which you wish to purchase a cryptocurrency. If the market price drops to or below your target price on the settlement date, you’ll buy the cryptocurrency at the price you specified, earning interest on your capital in the meantime. ‘Sell High’ Product: Conversely, this product enables you to set a target price above the current market price at which you’re ready to sell a cryptocurrency. If the market reaches or exceeds this price by the settlement date, you’ll sell your cryptocurrency at your desired price, again earning interest until that point.Examples to illustrate the ‘Buy Low’ and ‘Sell High’ productsTo better understand these products, let’s consider two scenarios:1. ‘Buy Low’ ExampleScenario: Imagine Bitcoin (BTC) is currently trading at $60,000. You believe it has the potential to drop to $55,000 in the next month but will eventually rebound.Strategy: You decide to use the ‘Buy Low’ product to set a target purchase price at $55,000, with a settlement date one month from now.Outcome if Target is Reached: If BTC drops to $55,000 or lower by the settlement date, you'll automatically purchase it at $55,000, utilizing both your initial investment and the interest earned during the period.Outcome if Target is Not Reached: If BTC remains above $55,000, you won’t buy BTC but will still receive the interest earned on your stablecoin investment.2. ‘Sell High’ ExampleScenario: Ethereum (ETH) is valued at $3,000, and you predict it might rise to $3,500 shortly.Strategy: You opt for the ‘Sell High’ product, setting a target sell price at $3,500, with a future settlement date.Outcome if Target is Reached: Should ETH reach or exceed $3,500 by the settlement date, you’ll sell your ETH at $3,500, plus earn interest on your holdings until that point.Outcome if Target is Not Reached: If ETH fails to hit $3,500, the sale won’t proceed, but you will have earned interest on your ETH holdings.Benefits of Dual InvestmentOne of the most attractive features of Dual Investment is the opportunity to earn interest, irrespective of whether the market is bullish or bearish. Traditional financial products often tie your earnings to market performance, but Dual Investment breaks this mold. By locking in your crypto or fiat with a ‘Buy Low’ or ‘Sell High’ order, you earn interest until the settlement date.Another significant advantage of using Dual Investment is the elimination of trading fees for orders that are filled. Typically, buying or selling crypto incurs a fee, which can add up, especially for active traders. However, when your ‘Buy Low’ or ‘Sell High’ Dual Investment order is executed, Binance waives these fees, making it a cost-effective option for trading.Understanding the Risks of Dual Investment ProductsDual Investment products, while versatile and potentially profitable, require a nuanced understanding of the risks involved:1. Market Price Volatility Risk: The crypto market is known for its high volatility. When you commit to a Dual Investment product, you’re locking in a future buy or sell price based on your predictions. However, the market could move in an unforeseen direction, leading to missed opportunities. For example, if you set a ‘Buy Low’ target but the market price significantly drops below your target, you may end up buying at a higher price than the new market norm.2. Opportunity Cost: Engaging in a Dual Investment product means your assets are locked until the settlement date. During this period, you might miss out on other opportunities, including favorable market movements that could offer higher returns.3. Interest Rate Fluctuation: The interest earned on Dual Investment products is attractive, but these rates are fixed upon subscription. Market interest rates or yields on other opportunities could increase, presenting a potential opportunity cost for locking in your assets.Dual Investment Product Revamp: What’s NewBinance’s commitment to user satisfaction and feedback has led to a significant revamp of the Dual Investment user experience and interface (UX/UI). This update is designed to further streamline the process, making it more intuitive, efficient, and responsive to user needs. With a cleaner look and simplified view, the revamp addresses common user feedback and enhances the overall usability of Dual Investment. Let’s dive into the details of this exciting update.Simplification of Asset SelectionThe process of selecting which asset to invest in has been streamlined, making it easier for users to navigate through available options and make informed decisions quickly.Simplification of Viewing Settlement DatesViewing and selecting settlement dates is now more straightforward, allowing users to easily plan their Dual Investment strategy around their preferred timeline.Simplified Subscription FlowThe subscription process has been overhauled for clarity and efficiency, reducing the number of steps and potential confusion for users subscribing to Dual Investment products.APR Confirmation Pop-Up Perhaps the most significant update is the introduction of an APR confirmation pop-up. This feature locks in the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) at the time of subscription, addressing the issue of fluctuating APRs during periods of high market volatility.Product Update: A Cleaner Look and Improved FunctionalityThe Dual Investment UX/UI revamp represents another step forward in making crypto more accessible, understandable, and user-friendly. By addressing key areas of user feedback and simplifying the process, Binance continues to demonstrate its commitment to enhancing user experience and satisfaction. Whether you’re a seasoned trader or new to crypto, these updates make Dual Investment an even more attractive option for earning rewards on your terms.Further ReadingTop 6 Dual Investment Trading StrategiesExploring Dual Investment’s New Auto-Compound FeatureBinance Earn Dual Investment: Cross Crypto Pairs LaunchDisclaimer: Digital asset prices can be volatile. The value of your investment may go down or up and you may not get back the amount invested. You are solely responsible for your investment decisions and Binance is not liable for any losses you may incur. For Dual Investment products, your return is fixed at the Deposit Currency APR, which refers to cryptocurrency rewards in the Deposit Currency, not actual or predicted returns in fiat or the Target Currency. You may be better off holding your cryptocurrency, and may be required to trade at a rate less favourable than the market rate on the Settlement Date. Not financial advice. For more information, see our Terms of Use and Risk Warning.
Log in to explore more content