#dusk $DUSK On-chain transaction volume, Gas, and active addresses all keep dropping together—many people will directly conclude that the fundamentals are weakening. But have you thought about this? On ZK chains like Dusk, these three lines can sometimes deceive you together: users are still requesting transactions, but the machines responsible for generating the proofs get blocked first.
I saw a PLONK change Dusk merged, and it targets this hidden trap. Before privacy transactions are put on-chain, the program needs to read a “compressed circuit”—think of it as the rule file for the proof machine. The old logic might first fully decompress the file, then allocate memory based on the quantity specified in that file. Even a not-very-large anomalous file can cause the machine to burn up memory and CPU before proof generation even starts. The new version sets a cap based on the circuit’s actual capacity, and rejects anything that exceeds it ahead of time.
At first I almost treated it as a minor patch by developers and didn’t take it seriously. But when I put it back into the context of transaction data, my mindset changed immediately: if the proof isn’t produced, there’s no transaction hash, so it won’t enter a block and won’t generate Gas. A block explorer will only show the transaction “turning cold.”
So I believe Dusk’s on-chain success volume should be determined by whichever is smaller between user requests and proof generation capacity.
When active addresses suddenly drop, I’ll first look at the proof queue length, success rate, the generation time of the slowest 5%, the number of Prover restarts, and how many times memory blows up—then compare those with on-chain transactions and Gas. The longer the queue gets while on-chain activity grows colder, the more it looks like the supply of proofs has dropped. If requests and the queue both decline, that’s more like users really have left.
For $DUSK , I think the real Gas demand is closer to: user transaction intent × proof success rate × average fee.
Honestly, this fix won’t directly create buying pressure, but it can prevent some demand from getting stuck outside the chain. A ZK project’s fundamentals can’t be judged only by what happens inside blocks—you also need to look at how many transactions are temporarily stuck at the door. After all, business at the door is also real business, soon.
Only by looking more comprehensively can you give $DUSK a more objective valuation. Right?
@Dusk
$BTC
I saw a PLONK change Dusk merged, and it targets this hidden trap. Before privacy transactions are put on-chain, the program needs to read a “compressed circuit”—think of it as the rule file for the proof machine. The old logic might first fully decompress the file, then allocate memory based on the quantity specified in that file. Even a not-very-large anomalous file can cause the machine to burn up memory and CPU before proof generation even starts. The new version sets a cap based on the circuit’s actual capacity, and rejects anything that exceeds it ahead of time.
At first I almost treated it as a minor patch by developers and didn’t take it seriously. But when I put it back into the context of transaction data, my mindset changed immediately: if the proof isn’t produced, there’s no transaction hash, so it won’t enter a block and won’t generate Gas. A block explorer will only show the transaction “turning cold.”
So I believe Dusk’s on-chain success volume should be determined by whichever is smaller between user requests and proof generation capacity.
When active addresses suddenly drop, I’ll first look at the proof queue length, success rate, the generation time of the slowest 5%, the number of Prover restarts, and how many times memory blows up—then compare those with on-chain transactions and Gas. The longer the queue gets while on-chain activity grows colder, the more it looks like the supply of proofs has dropped. If requests and the queue both decline, that’s more like users really have left.
For $DUSK , I think the real Gas demand is closer to: user transaction intent × proof success rate × average fee.
Honestly, this fix won’t directly create buying pressure, but it can prevent some demand from getting stuck outside the chain. A ZK project’s fundamentals can’t be judged only by what happens inside blocks—you also need to look at how many transactions are temporarily stuck at the door. After all, business at the door is also real business, soon.
Only by looking more comprehensively can you give $DUSK a more objective valuation. Right?
@Dusk
$BTC