DUSK community is voting: burn the block rewards that were burned, or put them into a treasury to keep it deflationary?
In August, the DUSK community is holding a crucial vote: whether to put into a community treasury the block rewards that were originally meant to be burned. It sounds like a technical upgrade, but in reality it’s a redistribution of benefits—protecting the interests of existing stakers while also leaving incentive room for future developers.
The big node came out directly: My block production rate is high; burning makes it deflationary. Putting rewards into a treasury isn’t just theft from the rich to help the poor, is it? For them, block rewards are compensation for validators’ work. Sacrificing yield to subsidize developers doesn’t add up. Developers, on the other hand, are cheering: finally, there’s food and supplies. A privacy chain without an application layer—no matter how strong the privacy is, you can’t collect tolls. It’s been nearly 8 months since the mainnet launched, and there are only a handful of on-chain applications. Without funding to attract teams to onboard, this chain can only remain in a state of “cool technology but no one uses it.”
This vote also exposes DUSK’s ecosystem power structure. Currently, there are about 200 active validators, and the top 20 control more than 35% of staked assets. With 35% of the stake concentrated in just 10% of validators, where is the decentralization? It’s clearly an “on-chain oligarchic politics.” But that’s also part of Dusk’s appeal—it doesn’t pretend. It puts the power game on the table so you can see who controls this network. @Dusk
If the proposal passes, it means the right to distribute Dusk’s block rewards can be changed by community vote, and governance won’t just be a formality. Once the gate is opened, more votes about node rewards, staking yield rates, and ecosystem grants may follow. If OpenDusk passes, DUSK will move from “team-led” to “community co-governance.” If it doesn’t pass, it will keep its deflationary path.
No matter the outcome, this will be the biggest variable near $0.06. Community governance isn’t a dinner invitation—it’s a real-money reshuffling of power. Wait for the voting results and then see where this chain goes: if it passes, developers get their food; if it fails, the big nodes win and developers keep waiting. The future of this chain may be hidden in the final result of this ballot. #dusk $DUSK
In August, the DUSK community is holding a crucial vote: whether to put into a community treasury the block rewards that were originally meant to be burned. It sounds like a technical upgrade, but in reality it’s a redistribution of benefits—protecting the interests of existing stakers while also leaving incentive room for future developers.
The big node came out directly: My block production rate is high; burning makes it deflationary. Putting rewards into a treasury isn’t just theft from the rich to help the poor, is it? For them, block rewards are compensation for validators’ work. Sacrificing yield to subsidize developers doesn’t add up. Developers, on the other hand, are cheering: finally, there’s food and supplies. A privacy chain without an application layer—no matter how strong the privacy is, you can’t collect tolls. It’s been nearly 8 months since the mainnet launched, and there are only a handful of on-chain applications. Without funding to attract teams to onboard, this chain can only remain in a state of “cool technology but no one uses it.”
This vote also exposes DUSK’s ecosystem power structure. Currently, there are about 200 active validators, and the top 20 control more than 35% of staked assets. With 35% of the stake concentrated in just 10% of validators, where is the decentralization? It’s clearly an “on-chain oligarchic politics.” But that’s also part of Dusk’s appeal—it doesn’t pretend. It puts the power game on the table so you can see who controls this network. @Dusk
If the proposal passes, it means the right to distribute Dusk’s block rewards can be changed by community vote, and governance won’t just be a formality. Once the gate is opened, more votes about node rewards, staking yield rates, and ecosystem grants may follow. If OpenDusk passes, DUSK will move from “team-led” to “community co-governance.” If it doesn’t pass, it will keep its deflationary path.
No matter the outcome, this will be the biggest variable near $0.06. Community governance isn’t a dinner invitation—it’s a real-money reshuffling of power. Wait for the voting results and then see where this chain goes: if it passes, developers get their food; if it fails, the big nodes win and developers keep waiting. The future of this chain may be hidden in the final result of this ballot. #dusk $DUSK
