AbdullRauf
8.1k Posts
AbdullRauf
Hi Guys i am Spot trader specialist in Intra Daytrade, DCA and Swing trade. Follow me tostay updated about market and Binance reward Campaigns.
Open Trade
NEWT Holder
Frequent Trader
1.3 Years
1.1K+ Following
29.8K+ Followers
26.8K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
Partly True
At first I assumed a fixed one-billion supply was the strongest signal in the $TMX design. Spent time with the actual unlock schedule and realized the more important number is the float.
Only about 200 million is expected to circulate at the start. Investor tokens alone release roughly 11.67 million per month after the cliff. Add team and advisor unlocks and the monthly linear flow can reach around 17.67 million. Scheduled dilution is normal. The real test is whether real demand and protocol revenue absorb the new supply faster than it arrives.
The 150 million team allocation equals 75 percent of the initial circulating supply. Team plus investors together total 430 million more than twice the day-one float. That changes how the phrase “fixed supply” lands. Scarcity on paper is one thing. What becomes sellable and when is another.
I am watching the free float and the speed at which it expands more than the headline billion. Supply discipline is not only what exists eventually. It is what becomes available when.
#termmax @TermMax
Only about 200 million is expected to circulate at the start. Investor tokens alone release roughly 11.67 million per month after the cliff. Add team and advisor unlocks and the monthly linear flow can reach around 17.67 million. Scheduled dilution is normal. The real test is whether real demand and protocol revenue absorb the new supply faster than it arrives.
The 150 million team allocation equals 75 percent of the initial circulating supply. Team plus investors together total 430 million more than twice the day-one float. That changes how the phrase “fixed supply” lands. Scarcity on paper is one thing. What becomes sellable and when is another.
I am watching the free float and the speed at which it expands more than the headline billion. Supply discipline is not only what exists eventually. It is what becomes available when.
#termmax @TermMax
PINNED
GIVEAWAY ALERT 🧧
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
At first I assumed confidential meant hidden from everyone. Encrypted data, no visibility, the transaction exists but nobody outside can read it. Hedger works differently. The transaction data is encrypted and externally opaque. Authorized regulators can still audit it. The encryption is not a wall. It is a door with a guest list. What I kept sitting with is the phrase authorized regulators. That phrase does a lot of work quietly. It decides who is on the list. It decides how someone gets added. It presumably decides how someone gets removed. None of that is the cryptography. All of that is governance. The technical privacy is real. The governance privacy is a different question entirely. You are not invisible inside Hedger. You are selectively visible to a set of parties @Dusk and its partners have defined. That might be exactly the right design for regulated finance. It is also not what most people mean when they hear the word confidential. When privacy means hidden from everyone except the people who matter to the system, who decides who matters?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
·
--
🎙️ Bull run fast return—has Musk’s little dogecoin got on board?
End
04 h 09 m 31 s
6.7k
273
go
AbdullRauf
·
--
GIVEAWAY ALERT 🧧
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
·
--
🎙️ Crypto market surges at level 1—can you still chase it? DCA into BNB
End
02 h 30 m 11 s
5.7k
17
·
--
🎙️ Crypto market updates discussion; newcomer Q&A✅坚持社区建设🦅 spreading free ideas! maintain ecological balance!
End
03 h 17 m 29 s
8.9k
89
·
--
🎙️ Day 7 of the Super 100U DCA into BTC, is DUSK bullish or bearish?
End
02 h 12 m 33 s
8k
22
go
AbdullRauf
·
--
GIVEAWAY ALERT 🧧
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
·
--
🎙️ Build the Binance Plaza, DCA BNB｜Today with BTC leading the way, the whole market is green—did everyone get meat? Let’s chat～
End
05 h 31 m 16 s
16.8k
59
Verified
At first I assumed a compliance layer for regulated assets would be a single thing. One design. One set of tradeoffs. Everyone using the same path. Dusk runs two. Zedger is built on the native execution environment. Hedger runs on the EVM-compatible layer. Both handle regulated asset issuance. Both enforce compliance rules. Neither is the other. What held my attention was not the technical split but what it reveals about who the protocol is actually trying to serve. Native developers get one path. Solidity developers get another. That is flexibility. It is also two codebases, two maintenance burdens, two places where a compliance gap could appear before anyone notices. The question I cannot answer from the documentation is whether both layers provide identical privacy guarantees or whether one makes tradeoffs the other does not. Flexibility that quietly gives different users different levels of protection is not really flexibility. It is a tiered system with a friendlier name. When @Dusk builds two compliance layers on the same protocol, does it double the ecosystem or split it?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I kept coming back to Dual Investment on TermMax Alpha. Most yield products either force you to take directional risk or leave you with plain floating rates. This one sits in a different place.
You deposit either the token or USDT and become the counterparty to option buyers. They pay you a premium for the right to long or short. At maturity the outcome is automatic. If you deposited the token and price finishes above the strike, you sell at the strike and keep the premium. If price stays below, you simply hold the token plus the premium. The reverse happens when you deposit USDT.
The yield is not free. You are paid to accept a capped upside or a potential conversion at a price you already chose. That trade-off is clear from day one. No hidden leverage, no liquidation cascade, just a fixed premium and a known settlement rule.
I still wonder how many people treat this as pure yield versus a deliberate decision to sell or buy at the strike. The design makes both readings possible. Behavior will show which one dominates.
#termmax @TermMax
You deposit either the token or USDT and become the counterparty to option buyers. They pay you a premium for the right to long or short. At maturity the outcome is automatic. If you deposited the token and price finishes above the strike, you sell at the strike and keep the premium. If price stays below, you simply hold the token plus the premium. The reverse happens when you deposit USDT.
The yield is not free. You are paid to accept a capped upside or a potential conversion at a price you already chose. That trade-off is clear from day one. No hidden leverage, no liquidation cascade, just a fixed premium and a known settlement rule.
I still wonder how many people treat this as pure yield versus a deliberate decision to sell or buy at the strike. The design makes both readings possible. Behavior will show which one dominates.
#termmax @TermMax
·
--
🎙️ The 6th day of superman 100U investing in BTC regularly—more DUSK or bearish?
End
03 h 53 m 18 s
14.9k
24
GIVEAWAY ALERT 🧧
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀
Tokenization isn’t just about splitting things into smaller pieces…
Real value appears when the entire ownership lifecycle runs on one shared record.
Real value appears when the entire ownership lifecycle runs on one shared record.
AbdullRauf
·
--
At first I assumed tokenization mostly meant splitting assets into smaller pieces. Fractional ownership. Easier entry. More people able to buy a slice. That was the part everyone focused on.
The more interesting claim is quieter. Real value appears when the whole ownership lifecycle sits on one shared record. Issuance. Investor eligibility. Ownership updates. Transfers. Dividends. Voting. Settlement. Coordinated in one place instead of reconciled across separate systems.
Smaller units alone do not create demand or legal certainty. What matters is connecting the security to accountable operators, eligible buyers, reliable payment, and an authorized venue. Without that connection, tokenization just adds another record that still needs checking against the old ones.
I keep wondering how many projects stop at the token and never finish the rest of the lifecycle.
Does tokenization create value by multiplying ownership units, or by removing the need to keep reconciling the same ownership story across different systems?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The more interesting claim is quieter. Real value appears when the whole ownership lifecycle sits on one shared record. Issuance. Investor eligibility. Ownership updates. Transfers. Dividends. Voting. Settlement. Coordinated in one place instead of reconciled across separate systems.
Smaller units alone do not create demand or legal certainty. What matters is connecting the security to accountable operators, eligible buyers, reliable payment, and an authorized venue. Without that connection, tokenization just adds another record that still needs checking against the old ones.
I keep wondering how many projects stop at the token and never finish the rest of the lifecycle.
Does tokenization create value by multiplying ownership units, or by removing the need to keep reconciling the same ownership story across different systems?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Verified
AbdullRauf
·
--
I couldn’t stop looking at the sequence TermMax chose for its token. Most teams announce the TGE first and then scramble to show product. Here the order was reversed.
They waited until the protocol was live on ten chains, had crossed $90M in TVL, and recorded more than 1.5 million registered wallets before locking the August 25 date. The numbers were already public. The product had already been tested under real load. Only then did the token date appear.
That changes how I read the whole launch. A fixed 1 billion supply looks clean on paper, but the real signal is the patience behind the timing. The team let the infrastructure run at scale before introducing the token that will eventually govern it. Most projects do the opposite and hope the product catches up later.
There is still an open question. Once circulating supply starts expanding after TGE, will usage and revenue grow faster than the new float, or will the earlier discipline simply become another data point that fades? I am watching that gap more than the headline billion.
The interesting part is not that they delayed the token. It is that they were willing to let the product speak first and only then put a number on the calendar.
#termmax @TermMax
They waited until the protocol was live on ten chains, had crossed $90M in TVL, and recorded more than 1.5 million registered wallets before locking the August 25 date. The numbers were already public. The product had already been tested under real load. Only then did the token date appear.
That changes how I read the whole launch. A fixed 1 billion supply looks clean on paper, but the real signal is the patience behind the timing. The team let the infrastructure run at scale before introducing the token that will eventually govern it. Most projects do the opposite and hope the product catches up later.
There is still an open question. Once circulating supply starts expanding after TGE, will usage and revenue grow faster than the new float, or will the earlier discipline simply become another data point that fades? I am watching that gap more than the headline billion.
The interesting part is not that they delayed the token. It is that they were willing to let the product speak first and only then put a number on the calendar.
#termmax @TermMax
Log in to explore more content