The more I look into @Dusk_Foundation the more I notice that its security model isn't built around treating every mistake the same.
On the user side, DUSK currently shows 210M+ staked on L1, while DuskEVM is still tagged Testnet. DUSK also exists in different representations, Moonlight is transparent and account-based, Phoenix is shielded and note-based. Bridging between them is technically seamless, but users still need to know which version they're actually holding, since that choice affects staking, privacy, and what they can do next.
On the validator side, #dusk splits penalties into soft and hard slashing. Soft slashing handles poor participation, moving active stake into locked stake instead of burning it. Hard slashing targets provable violations, 10% for an invalid block, 20% for double voting or double block production, with a 1,000 $DUSK minimum stake giving these penalties real weight.
Both sides seem built around context, not blanket punishment.
Can that stay clear for users and strict for attackers without softening on honest operators?
$BTW
$VELVET
On the user side, DUSK currently shows 210M+ staked on L1, while DuskEVM is still tagged Testnet. DUSK also exists in different representations, Moonlight is transparent and account-based, Phoenix is shielded and note-based. Bridging between them is technically seamless, but users still need to know which version they're actually holding, since that choice affects staking, privacy, and what they can do next.
On the validator side, #dusk splits penalties into soft and hard slashing. Soft slashing handles poor participation, moving active stake into locked stake instead of burning it. Hard slashing targets provable violations, 10% for an invalid block, 20% for double voting or double block production, with a 1,000 $DUSK minimum stake giving these penalties real weight.
Both sides seem built around context, not blanket punishment.
Can that stay clear for users and strict for attackers without softening on honest operators?
$BTW
$VELVET