The announcement is finally here—this week’s second new-coin airdrop: KII
Estimated for around 9 PM.
The allocation is pretty generous; it all comes down to how you handle it.
Personally, I don’t think it’ll be “sunshine everywhere” distribution.
Let’s get 242+ and 30,000 shares—estimate 100U+.
Recently, I dug into DUSK’s tokenomics, and I noticed many people are easily led astray by a seemingly positive headline.
According to the official materials, the initial 500 million tokens were fully unlocked as early as April 2022. The team, advisors, and early private-sale allocations have long since all been released into the market. Many people glance at the allocation table, see there’s no subsequent large team unlock, and instantly feel relieved—thinking the sell-pressure risk has already been ruled out.
But when I look further into the back half, that’s where the real tell is hidden. The original document says: “An additional 500 million DUSK to be emitted over a 36-year horizon, halving every four years.” In other words, there are another 500 million tokens to be slowly released over an entire 36 years in the form of staking/block rewards, with rewards halving every four years.
In the short term, there really isn’t the kind of earth-shattering massive unlock dump—this is something I won’t deny. But what does 36 years mean? That time span is simply too long. The increases released in the first four years are still quite substantial, and then they gradually taper off. Even if part of the newly minted tokens are locked on-chain via staking, the steady stream of newly added supply will, over the long run, continue to dilute the value of existing token holders.
Also, the early private-sale accounted for half of the initial allocation, and it has already been fully unlocked and circulating since 2022. Even though there aren’t new unlock events, those early big holders’ chips have long been freely tradable. For small-cap token projects, the market price is inherently quite susceptible to disturbances caused by large positions.
When people talk about token risks, most folks instinctively focus only on the team/institution unlock schedule, assuming that as long as there’s no large unlock, token supply is completely safe with no pressure. This DUSK design makes perfect use of the public’s way of thinking.
I’m not saying this model is entirely unreasonable. Long-cycle emissions are originally a制度 designed to incentivize nodes and ensure network security. It’s just that the official emphasis on “no subsequent team unlock” rarely makes it clear—at least not in a prominent way—that 36 years of continuous inflation is also a key point.
No short-term unlock downside doesn’t mean token supply has no pressure. This slow, “hidden knife” style long-term inflation is an invisible burden tucked deep within the table—it’s very easy for everyone to overlook it directly. Do you agree?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～
Estimated for around 9 PM.
The allocation is pretty generous; it all comes down to how you handle it.
Personally, I don’t think it’ll be “sunshine everywhere” distribution.
Let’s get 242+ and 30,000 shares—estimate 100U+.
Recently, I dug into DUSK’s tokenomics, and I noticed many people are easily led astray by a seemingly positive headline.
According to the official materials, the initial 500 million tokens were fully unlocked as early as April 2022. The team, advisors, and early private-sale allocations have long since all been released into the market. Many people glance at the allocation table, see there’s no subsequent large team unlock, and instantly feel relieved—thinking the sell-pressure risk has already been ruled out.
But when I look further into the back half, that’s where the real tell is hidden. The original document says: “An additional 500 million DUSK to be emitted over a 36-year horizon, halving every four years.” In other words, there are another 500 million tokens to be slowly released over an entire 36 years in the form of staking/block rewards, with rewards halving every four years.
In the short term, there really isn’t the kind of earth-shattering massive unlock dump—this is something I won’t deny. But what does 36 years mean? That time span is simply too long. The increases released in the first four years are still quite substantial, and then they gradually taper off. Even if part of the newly minted tokens are locked on-chain via staking, the steady stream of newly added supply will, over the long run, continue to dilute the value of existing token holders.
Also, the early private-sale accounted for half of the initial allocation, and it has already been fully unlocked and circulating since 2022. Even though there aren’t new unlock events, those early big holders’ chips have long been freely tradable. For small-cap token projects, the market price is inherently quite susceptible to disturbances caused by large positions.
When people talk about token risks, most folks instinctively focus only on the team/institution unlock schedule, assuming that as long as there’s no large unlock, token supply is completely safe with no pressure. This DUSK design makes perfect use of the public’s way of thinking.
I’m not saying this model is entirely unreasonable. Long-cycle emissions are originally a制度 designed to incentivize nodes and ensure network security. It’s just that the official emphasis on “no subsequent team unlock” rarely makes it clear—at least not in a prominent way—that 36 years of continuous inflation is also a key point.
No short-term unlock downside doesn’t mean token supply has no pressure. This slow, “hidden knife” style long-term inflation is an invisible burden tucked deep within the table—it’s very easy for everyone to overlook it directly. Do you agree?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～