@Dusk Every day they hang on their lips the phrase “the only one, built exclusively for compliance,” but when you get to the number EURQ—the figure they most want to pull in—everything in the materials is written in plain black and white: Dusk is only one of the three chains that can access EURQ. So, what does “the only one” mean once it lands in this sentence? It leaves you with just “one-third.”
It’s a bit like a restaurant that keeps advertising, “Our private kitchen dishes are unique in the whole city.” But the signature dish is actually pre-made—supplied by a vendor to three different stores. You can order it at other places too; the only difference is that your door has a bigger sign saying “private kitchen.” As for this “digital euro” pot that EURQ holds—if Dusk can serve it, of course others can too.
That said, $DUSK ’s position here starts to feel awkward. It’s the native gas (execution fee) and settlement unit for this chain; it only exists on its own chain. But the real circulating money—EURQ—can be used across all three chains. In other words, the money is multi-chain, while DUSK is single-chain. It can control how it gets spent on Dusk, but it can’t control how EURQ flows elsewhere. There’s a fairly subtle gap between them.
Of course, it’s not like the project has nothing going for it. Being honest enough to write “one of the three chains” is better than blindly hyping “the only one on the whole network.” And if the positioning of “built natively for RWA issuance” really holds up, there’s still room for genuine differentiation.
But putting that aside, veteran investors’ concerns are usually more practical: if users want to use a digital euro, they may not necessarily need to come to Dusk. Other platforms can use EURQ as well. So DUSK’s value is really pinned to the real transaction volume on its own chain—not to EURQ’s multi-chain coverage. Adding one more entry point doesn’t automatically mean more demand for your token. Do the math and it becomes clear.
So right now, my stance is very clear: don’t take “one of the three chains” as “exclusive,” and don’t treat partners’ coverage as your moat. DYOR—this isn’t investment advice; protecting your principal always comes first.#dusk
One last question: when the digital euro they’re most eager to pull through the door can itself run on all three chains, how much of Dusk’s “the only compliant chain” is actually something others can’t take away?
It’s a bit like a restaurant that keeps advertising, “Our private kitchen dishes are unique in the whole city.” But the signature dish is actually pre-made—supplied by a vendor to three different stores. You can order it at other places too; the only difference is that your door has a bigger sign saying “private kitchen.” As for this “digital euro” pot that EURQ holds—if Dusk can serve it, of course others can too.
That said, $DUSK ’s position here starts to feel awkward. It’s the native gas (execution fee) and settlement unit for this chain; it only exists on its own chain. But the real circulating money—EURQ—can be used across all three chains. In other words, the money is multi-chain, while DUSK is single-chain. It can control how it gets spent on Dusk, but it can’t control how EURQ flows elsewhere. There’s a fairly subtle gap between them.
Of course, it’s not like the project has nothing going for it. Being honest enough to write “one of the three chains” is better than blindly hyping “the only one on the whole network.” And if the positioning of “built natively for RWA issuance” really holds up, there’s still room for genuine differentiation.
But putting that aside, veteran investors’ concerns are usually more practical: if users want to use a digital euro, they may not necessarily need to come to Dusk. Other platforms can use EURQ as well. So DUSK’s value is really pinned to the real transaction volume on its own chain—not to EURQ’s multi-chain coverage. Adding one more entry point doesn’t automatically mean more demand for your token. Do the math and it becomes clear.
So right now, my stance is very clear: don’t take “one of the three chains” as “exclusive,” and don’t treat partners’ coverage as your moat. DYOR—this isn’t investment advice; protecting your principal always comes first.#dusk
One last question: when the digital euro they’re most eager to pull through the door can itself run on all three chains, how much of Dusk’s “the only compliant chain” is actually something others can’t take away?