Jax 斩棘

If one day BlackRock, JPMorgan, and even more traditional financial institutions start using public chains at scale, would what they truly care about be TPS?

I don’t think so.

What institutions really care about might be: whether assets can be issued compliantly, whether identities can be verified, whether transactions can be controlled, whether privacy can be protected, and ultimately whether final settlement can be guaranteed.

From this perspective, looking back at @Dusk , you’ll find its design is actually far more complex than the label “privacy chain.”

At the base layer, DuskDS handles consensus and data availability, DuskVM is responsible for executing native smart contracts, and DuskEVM provides a migration and build environment for developers familiar with the Ethereum ecosystem.

Going further up, you have components like Hedger and Citadel that are even more closely tied to financial business needs.

Hedger focuses on privacy-preserving computation and deterministic settlement, while Citadel deals with identity and access control.

As the ecosystem continues to expand outward, you can also see participants from different directions, such as NPEX, Quantoz, and Chainlink.

Once these modules are combined, what Dusk truly presents is a fairly complete set of logic:

identity → assets → transactions → privacy → compliance → settlement.

That’s also why I think that when researching $DUSK , you shouldn’t only look at whether it has added another partner, and you shouldn’t just focus on short-term prices.

More importantly, you should look at whether it can genuinely convert these technical modules into on-chain activity—gradually bringing developers, institutions, and real-world assets into the ecosystem.

Because for a public chain that truly wants to enter the financial world, the thing that ultimately determines value is never how grand the story is, but whether it has the capability to carry real-world transactions.
#dusk $DUSK
What do you think is the hardest problem for Dusk to solve?

In the past few years, the most common ways for public chains to compete have been pretty straightforward:

Win users, win capital, win developers.

Whose TVL is higher, whose active addresses are more, whose ecosystem has more projects— the market concludes that whoever scores highest is stronger.

But if blockchain truly enters traditional finance in the future, the competition rules may change.

Because the financial market isn’t a game of “whoever has more wins.”

It’s more like a complex rule machine.

Asset issuance has rules.

Trading has rules.

Investor identity has rules.

Disclosure of information has rules.

Even final settlement has rules.

Whoever can write these rules into the network more naturally may be the one that can truly take on the next phase of bringing financial assets on-chain.

That’s also one reason I’ve become increasingly interested when looking at @Dusk .

Dusk hasn’t limited its story to a typical trading network; instead, it’s trying to combine smart contracts, privacy technology, financial assets, and compliant use cases into one.

Especially designs like XSC—at their core, they’re thinking about a very practical question:

After financial assets are brought on-chain, should the rules remain off-chain, or should they enter the asset’s lifecycle directly?

If, in the future, the answer gradually becomes the latter, then the role of blockchain will change.

It won’t be only a ledger that records transactions.

It may start to become part of the execution layer for financial rules.

By then, the way the market evaluates a chain may also change.

People won’t just ask how many users it has, but will start asking:

How many real assets are running on it?

How many financial rules are being executed on-chain?

How many institutions are willing to hand their core business over to it?

This may be what $DUSK is truly worth observing long-term.

#dusk $DUSK
Do you think Dusk can attract more EVM developers by using DuskEVM?

I used to think that “transparency” was blockchain’s greatest advantage.

But if we shift the scenario to stocks, bonds, funds, or even institutional trading, I find myself starting to doubt: if all information is public, does that truly meet the needs of financial markets?

This is also something I feel particularly strongly after recently revisiting the @Dusk whitepaper.

Rather than simply turning “public” and “privacy” into a binary choice, Dusk designed two trading models: Moonlight and Phoenix. Moonlight uses an account model, making it more suitable for public, traceable transactions. Phoenix uses a UTXO model: it verifies the validity of transactions through zero-knowledge proofs, and uses a nullifier to prevent double-spending—completing verification while concealing sensitive transaction information.

What’s truly interesting about this design is that privacy doesn’t mean you can’t regulate.

Dusk places more emphasis on “selective disclosure”: which data is made public, to whom it’s disclosed, and when the disclosure happens can be controlled according to the needs of different financial scenarios.

If RWA really enters institutional markets at scale in the future, I think what institutions may need is neither 100% transparency nor complete anonymity.

Instead, it’s an infrastructure capable of providing “verifiable privacy.”

This is also something I’m paying close attention to when looking at $DUSK .
#dusk $DUSK
Which financial on-chain problem do you think Dusk is best suited to solve?

In the past few years, when people have tried to judge whether a public chain is strong or not, they usually look at a few things:

Is the TPS high?

Is the gas low?

Is the ecosystem big?

Are there many developers?

But if the chain’s on-chain capacity in the future isn’t just supporting a handful of DeFi tokens, but truly massive financial assets, I think the rules of competition may change.

Because the financial market has another very important thing:

Information.

Who can see it?

When can it be seen?

How much can be seen?

Who is eligible to verify?

For these questions, sensitivity may be even more important than just transaction speed.

This is also the biggest change in how I think after re-researching @Dusk .

Previously, I would look at Phoenix, Moonlight, and Zedger separately.

Now, I actually feel that putting them together makes Dusk’s approach easier to understand.

Phoenix focuses on privacy-preserving asset transfers.

Moonlight preserves the ability of public accounts and transparent settlement.

Transfer Contract enables connections between different models.

Zedger/XSC further targets compliant assets and real-world financial scenarios.

Going further, DuskDS and DuskEVM give developers even broader application space.

So what’s truly interesting about Dusk may not be “can I hide my transactions.”

Instead, it’s:

Can I have a financial transaction be verified when it’s needed, and keep it private when it’s not?

That’s actually a very practical problem.

Because in the future, the financial world can neither be fully transparent nor completely anonymous.

Valuable infrastructure should be able to find a workable balance between the two.

So when looking at $DUSK now, I think what’s worth observing is no longer just whether it’s a privacy project.

Instead, it’s whether it has a chance to become the bridge connecting privacy, compliance, and on-chain finance.#dusk $DUSK
What do you think will be Dusk’s most core competitive advantage in the future?

An interesting idea:
After a movie is released, does the lifecycle of the IP end?
Not necessarily.
Take a play like $niulai—it's about getting the movie 《牛来》 into the Web3 community, so the IP continues to generate discussion beyond the film.
If the community really takes hold of this IP, you might see all kinds of secondary playstyles that you wouldn’t have thought of before.
#niulai #牛来

Many people research @Dusk , and the first thing they notice is Phoenix.

That’s completely normal.

After all, Phoenix addresses the most core privacy-transaction problems of Dusk.

But if you only look at Phoenix, I think you’ve only seen part of Dusk.

Because for a truly public chain that wants to enter the financial market, protecting transaction privacy alone is far from enough.

Behind real-world financial assets are many complex processes—identity, issuance, trading restrictions, asset status, settlement, and more.

So what Dusk is doing now is increasingly like a complete set of financial infrastructure.

At the base, DuskDS is responsible for network consensus and settlement, DuskVM handles smart contract execution, and DuskEVM further lowers the barrier for EVM developers to enter the ecosystem.

Above that, there are components and applications such as Citadel, Zedger, Hedger, and Dusk Trade.

You’ll find that its narrative is gradually changing.

At first, what everyone sees is:

“A public chain with privacy capabilities.”

But after further research, you’ll realize that what it truly wants to enter is the financial market.

Because in the next phase, what RWA may truly need isn’t issuing another ten thousand Tokens—it’s actually connecting asset issuance, investor identity, trading rules, privacy protection, and final settlement into a real, coherent system.

Phoenix is just one piece of the puzzle.

If Dusk can truly get these modules running, then the story it tells won’t be only about “privacy.”

It will be:

Can the next-generation financial market be rebuilt on-chain again.#dusk $DUSK
What do you think is Dusk’s most core advantage in trying to enter the RWA track?

What is one of the greatest inventions of blockchain?

Many people might first think of decentralization.

But if you look at it from the perspective of traditional financial institutions, I think there’s another answer:

Transparency.

However, what the financial market truly needs may not be that “all information is fully public.”

Revisiting the whitepaper of @Dusk , I noticed a very practical question: if funds, securities, bonds, and other assets are all put on-chain, would institutions really be willing to expose their own positions, capital flows, and trading details completely?

That’s also what I find interesting about Dusk.

It’s not simply pursuing privacy; it’s thinking about how to strike a balance among privacy, compliance, and transparency. The information that needs to be verified can be verified. Data that should remain hidden can continue to be hidden. And when regulators or auditors need it, proof can still be provided through selective disclosure.

This is especially important for RWA.

Putting assets on-chain is only the first step; the real difficulty is whether institutions dare to use it long-term.

So for now, I’d rather think of Dusk as infrastructure built for financial scenarios, not just a “privacy chain.”

When the future of finance truly moves on-chain, the competition probably won’t be about whose data is the most transparent, but about who can do this:

Be transparent when it should be transparent; keep things confidential when they should be confidential; and when regulators need it, be able to prove it.

That might be the real reason Dusk is worth paying attention to.
#dusk $DUSK
If, in the future, institutions massively put assets on-chain, what do you think is Dusk’s most important capability?

If Wall Street really starts moving financial assets onto the blockchain at large scale, can public chains genuinely handle it directly?

With that in mind, I went back to look up the materials for @Dusk . In the DUSK whitepaper, the XSC standard, confidential contracts, and compliance mechanisms they’ve been emphasizing all revolve around a very practical issue: financial data can’t be fully exposed, but regulators also can’t be completely kept in the dark.

That’s also what I find interesting about DUSK. It’s not privacy for the sake of “privacy” alone; it puts privacy into regulated financial scenarios like securities and RWA. It both protects transaction details and preserves room for verification and audit.

Now DuskEVM is also being developed, and ecosystem directions like NPEX are worth paying attention to as well. But in the end, what really determines the space DUSK can carve out is when these things can turn into real assets, real users, and real transactions.

If that step really works out, the market’s understanding of DUSK may be completely different.#dusk $DUSK

If institutions really start entering RWA at scale, what would be DUSK’s most important advantage?

BTC and ETH are both competing for attention, but could the next real opportunity worth watching be hiding within those unremarkable financial infrastructure layers?

Recently, market narratives have been switching quickly—from AI to BTCFi, then to RWA and stablecoins. Behind each hotspot, they all point in the same direction: more and more capital and assets are trying to move onto the blockchain.

This is also why, after I recently re-researched @Dusk , I found it interesting. DUSK isn’t just chasing any single trend; instead, it focuses on the fundamental infrastructure that on-chain finance truly needs. Asset issuance, identity verification, privacy protection, compliance requirements, and ultimately settlement—these don’t sound exciting, but they are exactly the issues institutions can’t avoid when entering the chain.

DUSK’s design left a strong impression on me. It aims to make privacy and compliance no longer a choice between the two, and by providing deterministic finality, it offers a more stable settlement environment for financial assets.

So the more I think about it, the more I feel that the next round of real imagination space may not be another project chasing the latest trend, but rather whoever can become the underlying infrastructure for RWA, stablecoins, and institutional capital to enter the chain.

If on-chain finance truly moves into the next stage, could DUSK be the name that gets rediscovered?
#dusk $DUSK
If RWA enters a truly institutional era, what do you think is most important?

It’s still more comfortable to scan the chain—sleeping comes with surprises
$TUT

$TUT 30 million profit is gone ☹️

$TUT profit giving back 10 ten-thousand yuan 😵

$TUT profit has reached 3.72 million USD, keep pushing 📈

$TUT diamond hand victory

3.15 buy and hold until now, profit 24.5 thousand US dollars

Feels good 😊

Come on! Babes, lots of perks!

Benefits galore

BTC to $1M, $2M, and even $10M in the future.

Many people believe that BTC’s biggest opportunity is a rising price.

But if BTC truly reaches $1M in the future, a new question may only just begin:

With an asset that has the world’s strongest consensus, why is it still so hard to be genuinely used?

Over the past decade or more, Bitcoin has moved from an experiment to institutional acceptance, becoming the most important store of value in the crypto market.

But it has also always had a contradiction:

The more valuable it is, the less anyone is willing to move it.

Many BTC holders want to earn more returns, but they also worry about the risks brought by cross-chain transfers, custody, and smart contracts.

And this is exactly what @BabylonLabs_io aims to solve.

Babylon isn’t creating a new BTC substitute. Instead, it seeks to use BTC’s native security capabilities to provide stronger economic security for PoS networks.

By using BTC staking, the UTXO model, Bitcoin Script, and timelock mechanisms, BTC can participate in new application scenarios without leaving the Bitcoin network.

Among them, TBV’s design allows BTC to choose a more flexible or a more secure way of usage according to different needs.

In simple terms:

BTC shouldn’t be only “digital gold” lying in a wallet—it can also become the security foundation for the entire blockchain ecosystem.

In the future, the competition won’t be only about which project has more users, but about who can obtain the most trusted source of security.

What Babylon is exploring may be a new path to unlock the hidden value of BTC.#baby $BABY
What do you think about Babylon’s BTC staking solution?