At first I assumed token emissions were something protocols designed to end quickly, a short window to bootstrap participation before the network sustains itself through transaction fees alone. Dusk runs on a different timeline. Five hundred million DUSK will be emitted over thirty-six years to fund staking rewards, following a geometric decay that halves every four years. The first four years emit two hundred and fifty million, half the entire emission schedule, in a single period. The math is deliberate. Early stakers earn the most. Later stakers earn progressively less from the same act of participation. What I kept thinking about is what that curve actually selects for. The people staking now are not just earning rewards. They are being paid, at the highest rate that will ever exist, to secure a network that has not yet reached the scale that would justify that payment through usage alone. The emission is subsidizing belief before usage can sustain it. What I cannot resolve is whether the curve is long enough to matter. Bitcoin's halving works because the network grew into its fee market before emissions became marginal. Dusk has thirty-six years and a regulated finance thesis. Whether that thesis generates enough transaction volume to make staking worth it when @Dusk emissions approach zero is the only question the schedule cannot answer. Can $DUSK fees replace emissions before the halvings make staking feel like diminishing returns?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk