Seeing those “beautiful numbers” of funding and collateralization like @Dusk , my first reaction is not excitement, but suspicion. It’s like seeing a long line outside a restaurant, only to go in and find that the dishes haven’t all come out yet, and the servers are flustered.
What I really care about are the “honest” data on-chain linked to $DUSK . After browsing around, I found that many core functions are still under testing, there are few mainnet transactions, not many active users, and the on-chain asset scale is also small. This is a bit far from its self-described positioning as an “institution-level financial public chain.” High collateralization is more like using rewards to lock up coins—it can only show how many coins someone holds, not how many people are truly using it.
I always feel that user acquisition is like cutting the ribbon at opening day—lively for a moment; retention is the real skill. Like the first day of school, having lots of people doesn’t mean much. What matters is how many are still willing to come back for class by the end of the semester—this is what shows whether the teachers are any good. Once incentives stop, whether users still voluntarily come back is the key to whether a project can live on.
I do have expectations for #Dusk —privacy needs do exist. But I want to know more: when the subsidies are gone and the hype fades, what will keep people around? Is the technology genuinely useful, or is the ecosystem genuinely rich? These questions matter far more than the size of its funding.
In the end, I’d rather see a small project that improves slowly every day than chase an empty fantasy where the numbers look good but nobody sticks around. In the crypto world, living long matters more than running fast.
What I really care about are the “honest” data on-chain linked to $DUSK . After browsing around, I found that many core functions are still under testing, there are few mainnet transactions, not many active users, and the on-chain asset scale is also small. This is a bit far from its self-described positioning as an “institution-level financial public chain.” High collateralization is more like using rewards to lock up coins—it can only show how many coins someone holds, not how many people are truly using it.
I always feel that user acquisition is like cutting the ribbon at opening day—lively for a moment; retention is the real skill. Like the first day of school, having lots of people doesn’t mean much. What matters is how many are still willing to come back for class by the end of the semester—this is what shows whether the teachers are any good. Once incentives stop, whether users still voluntarily come back is the key to whether a project can live on.
I do have expectations for #Dusk —privacy needs do exist. But I want to know more: when the subsidies are gone and the hype fades, what will keep people around? Is the technology genuinely useful, or is the ecosystem genuinely rich? These questions matter far more than the size of its funding.
In the end, I’d rather see a small project that improves slowly every day than chase an empty fantasy where the numbers look good but nobody sticks around. In the crypto world, living long matters more than running fast.