I’m really puzzled about Dusk’s strategy of “furiously throwing money” and onboarding new people for @Dusk : on the surface, the numbers are taking off—but among this crowd that squeezes their way in, are they truly “using the network,” or have they become “merciless task machines”?
In the latest push, Dusk partnered with Binance CreatorPad and directly dropped 480,000 DUSK. The path they guided is extremely utilitarian: create content, farm trades/volume, rack up points, and抢 top rankings. In a previous AMA, they also handed out a 6,550 DUSK红包. As a public-relations tactic, this has clearly worked: engagement, tweet volume, and short-term on-chain activity all spiked instantly.
But what operators hate most is treating “piece-rate contractors” as if they were a “real, stable base of genuine users.” $BTC
The logic is simple: once the subsidies stop, the performance metrics won’t be those praise-filled tweets—they’ll be who actually stays to create wallets, bridge across chains, run validator/node staking, operate DuskEVM, and still interact even weeks later. The numbers the official website boasts do look impressive: 210M+ DUSK staked, 50K+ investor reach, and an issuance scale of over €300M; the community dashboard also highlights 208.85M DUSK locked and 196 block-producing nodes.
The crux of the problem is this: these extravagant B2B-style metrics can prove the stability of the technical foundation, but they don’t cover up the awkward reality that the CreatorPad attracted to C retail users is largely disappearing.
Honestly, I’d rather have Dusk abandon those PR drafts about “how many tens of thousands are watching” and instead bravely share real data that truly tests life and death: the 7/30-day churn rate of the users who receive airdrops, a funnel model from first authorization to deep engagement, the revenue/user-activity slump after the bonus period ends, and the share of wallets that genuinely keeps money in the ecosystem. #dusk
If those 480,000枚 $DUSK are merely buying a fake burst of activity from content and trading, then it’s putting out one fire with another; only when the flow of people continues to return and linger even after subsidies are removed does it count as real growth beyond the bubble.
These two paths are worlds apart—and absolutely cannot be lumped together.
In the latest push, Dusk partnered with Binance CreatorPad and directly dropped 480,000 DUSK. The path they guided is extremely utilitarian: create content, farm trades/volume, rack up points, and抢 top rankings. In a previous AMA, they also handed out a 6,550 DUSK红包. As a public-relations tactic, this has clearly worked: engagement, tweet volume, and short-term on-chain activity all spiked instantly.
But what operators hate most is treating “piece-rate contractors” as if they were a “real, stable base of genuine users.” $BTC
The logic is simple: once the subsidies stop, the performance metrics won’t be those praise-filled tweets—they’ll be who actually stays to create wallets, bridge across chains, run validator/node staking, operate DuskEVM, and still interact even weeks later. The numbers the official website boasts do look impressive: 210M+ DUSK staked, 50K+ investor reach, and an issuance scale of over €300M; the community dashboard also highlights 208.85M DUSK locked and 196 block-producing nodes.
The crux of the problem is this: these extravagant B2B-style metrics can prove the stability of the technical foundation, but they don’t cover up the awkward reality that the CreatorPad attracted to C retail users is largely disappearing.
Honestly, I’d rather have Dusk abandon those PR drafts about “how many tens of thousands are watching” and instead bravely share real data that truly tests life and death: the 7/30-day churn rate of the users who receive airdrops, a funnel model from first authorization to deep engagement, the revenue/user-activity slump after the bonus period ends, and the share of wallets that genuinely keeps money in the ecosystem. #dusk
If those 480,000枚 $DUSK are merely buying a fake burst of activity from content and trading, then it’s putting out one fire with another; only when the flow of people continues to return and linger even after subsidies are removed does it count as real growth beyond the bubble.
These two paths are worlds apart—and absolutely cannot be lumped together.