When I translated the “Succinct Attestation” consensus of $DUSK , I noticed a detail: the official documentation says the committee size is 64 credits. In other words, only 64 nodes actually participate in each round of consensus.
What does “64 nodes” even mean? On Ethereum mainnet, there are over one million active validators, and on Algorand there are more than 2,000. With #dusk using just 64 nodes to uphold a public chain aimed at RWA securities? What are they thinking...
With this question in mind, I went through more materials.
The minimum staking threshold is 1000 DUSK—it's not an astronomical number, but it’s also not pocket change you can casually pull out. Block rewards allocate 80% to block proposers. Even if a small validator is occasionally selected into the committee, the收益 (returns) may not even cover the server electricity bill—@Dusk .
I went to a block explorer to look for data on validator staking concentration and node geographic distribution. I searched for half a day and couldn’t find it. It’s possible I used the wrong entry point, but in ordinary public channels, aggregated data really isn’t available. The data itself is not transparent—this is a point worth paying attention to: $VELVET .
I also saw an online rumor: “With 67 validators, you can achieve the same security as Algorand.” But after reading the official documentation and the audit reports, I still couldn’t find the corresponding original wording. It’s also possible I missed it.
The Succinct Attestation architecture can indeed achieve finality within 15 seconds, and it also offers higher throughput—making it a must-have for transaction scenarios like NPEX’s MTF. But from a decentralization perspective, in theory anyone can become a validator. Yet, constrained by the economic model and the small committee design, influence naturally tends to tilt toward large stakers and whales.
Protecting transaction privacy with ZK is one thing. Having centralized power at the consensus layer held by a small set of nodes is another. For friends who plan to hold long-term, you might want to pay more attention to whether the project will publicly disclose validator staking concentration and node geographic distribution. I think that’s a far more practical reference for measuring decentralization.
What does “64 nodes” even mean? On Ethereum mainnet, there are over one million active validators, and on Algorand there are more than 2,000. With #dusk using just 64 nodes to uphold a public chain aimed at RWA securities? What are they thinking...
With this question in mind, I went through more materials.
The minimum staking threshold is 1000 DUSK—it's not an astronomical number, but it’s also not pocket change you can casually pull out. Block rewards allocate 80% to block proposers. Even if a small validator is occasionally selected into the committee, the收益 (returns) may not even cover the server electricity bill—@Dusk .
I went to a block explorer to look for data on validator staking concentration and node geographic distribution. I searched for half a day and couldn’t find it. It’s possible I used the wrong entry point, but in ordinary public channels, aggregated data really isn’t available. The data itself is not transparent—this is a point worth paying attention to: $VELVET .
I also saw an online rumor: “With 67 validators, you can achieve the same security as Algorand.” But after reading the official documentation and the audit reports, I still couldn’t find the corresponding original wording. It’s also possible I missed it.
The Succinct Attestation architecture can indeed achieve finality within 15 seconds, and it also offers higher throughput—making it a must-have for transaction scenarios like NPEX’s MTF. But from a decentralization perspective, in theory anyone can become a validator. Yet, constrained by the economic model and the small committee design, influence naturally tends to tilt toward large stakers and whales.
Protecting transaction privacy with ZK is one thing. Having centralized power at the consensus layer held by a small set of nodes is another. For friends who plan to hold long-term, you might want to pay more attention to whether the project will publicly disclose validator staking concentration and node geographic distribution. I think that’s a far more practical reference for measuring decentralization.