#dusk Over these past two days, watching @Dusk, I’ve actually become more concerned about a very realistic question: if Dusk talks about having more institutional assets, does that mean $DUSK is definitely worth more? I don’t think we can draw that equals sign yet.
The figures currently provided on the official website are already quite substantial: confirming the issuance size exceeds 300 million euros, and more than 210 million DUSK are involved in staking. It sounds like both sides are growing, but if you break down the token economics, you’ll find that the most clear-cut demand for DUSK right now still comes from two things—Gas and staking. In other words, even if in the future Dusk Trade really brings in more securities, RWA, and institutional assets, the key won’t be “how much asset is on-chain,” but rather how much fee these businesses can generate that truly must be paid in DUSK.
There’s one part that I’m particularly worried about. Dusk’s maximum supply is 1 billion tokens, of which 500 million are long-term new issuances. The entire emissions cycle lasts 36 years, with only about 250 million tokens planned to be released in the first 4 years; validator rewards then come simultaneously from newly issued DUSK and transaction fees.
So when I look at Dusk now, I don’t really want to keep focusing on how many institutions are partnering. I’d rather wait for one piece of data: when will actual fees clearly take over the baton from new issuance?
If, in the long run, network security mainly relies on issuance subsidies, and things stay busy, but token value doesn’t flow back strongly enough, the end result could be a rather awkward situation—assets are running on Dusk, but the value isn’t sufficiently settled into DUSK.
That’s the one thing I think @Dusk should prove next.
#dusk $DUSK $DUSK @Dusk
The figures currently provided on the official website are already quite substantial: confirming the issuance size exceeds 300 million euros, and more than 210 million DUSK are involved in staking. It sounds like both sides are growing, but if you break down the token economics, you’ll find that the most clear-cut demand for DUSK right now still comes from two things—Gas and staking. In other words, even if in the future Dusk Trade really brings in more securities, RWA, and institutional assets, the key won’t be “how much asset is on-chain,” but rather how much fee these businesses can generate that truly must be paid in DUSK.
There’s one part that I’m particularly worried about. Dusk’s maximum supply is 1 billion tokens, of which 500 million are long-term new issuances. The entire emissions cycle lasts 36 years, with only about 250 million tokens planned to be released in the first 4 years; validator rewards then come simultaneously from newly issued DUSK and transaction fees.
So when I look at Dusk now, I don’t really want to keep focusing on how many institutions are partnering. I’d rather wait for one piece of data: when will actual fees clearly take over the baton from new issuance?
If, in the long run, network security mainly relies on issuance subsidies, and things stay busy, but token value doesn’t flow back strongly enough, the end result could be a rather awkward situation—assets are running on Dusk, but the value isn’t sufficiently settled into DUSK.
That’s the one thing I think @Dusk should prove next.
#dusk $DUSK $DUSK @Dusk