#dusk $DUSK Today I’m calculating the staking rewards of @Dusk . While calculating, I found something quite interesting. In the end, the staking rewards of most PoS chains are inflation dilution passed on to non-stakers—the essence is a zero-sum redistribution. But if Dusk manages to follow the path of RWA tokenization, the structure of where staking rewards come from would be different from others.
Think about it: if tokenized bonds, tokenized fund shares, tokenized private equity really begin running on the Dusk network, then for each asset, issuance, transfer, settlement, and compliance checks are all on-chain transactions. Every transaction consumes DUSK as gas. These transactions aren’t “crypto traders cutting each other up”; they’re real economic activities caused by real-world assets circulating on-chain. If this flywheel starts turning, stakers would receive not only inflation subsidies, but also a portion of the network’s real economic value. The quality of this yield is fundamentally different from chains that mint purely through inflation—the underlying logic is completely different.
But the problem is also here: this flywheel is still stuck at the “if” stage for now. What does Dusk network gas consumption mainly come from at the moment? Test transactions, developers deploying contracts, and a small number of early use cases. No one knows when RWA assets truly generate large-scale, real trading volume on-chain. If that time comes later than your staking unlock cycle, then in essence the rewards you earn during your staking period are still inflation subsidies, not “real yield.”
I’ve staked some of it, but not a high proportion—I’m stuck on the uncertainty of this “flywheel start time.” When you stake, do you factor in the dimension of “real economic activity,” or do you just look at the APR number?@Dusk $BTC