The more I look into the tokenomics of @Dusk recently, the more I feel the question it should answer most urgently isn’t “How big is the RWA market?”—but a much more realistic one: in the end, how much real buy pressure can these RWAs actually generate for $DUSK ?
Officially, the use cases for DUSK are stated very plainly right now: Gas + Staking. The problem is that both kinds of demand highly depend on real people actively trading on-chain. At the same time, the supply side has already been written into the protocol in advance: an initial 500 million tokens, plus another 500 million tokens planned to be released over 36 years. Just in the first four years alone, roughly 250.48 million tokens are expected to be released—about 19.86 tokens per block.
Even more noteworthy is that the block rewards aren’t only transaction fees; they also include newly issued tokens. In addition, the development fund takes a fixed 10%, the verification and confirmation committee each take 5%, and the block producer gets 70% plus up to an additional 10%. The transaction fees themselves also feed into the block reward redistribution rather than being simply burned in full.
So I think the real pressure point for Dusk is this: incentives are certain, but demand still needs real-world business execution to prove itself.
On August 15, the official messaging was still about tokenizing SMEs’ assets, NPEX, and Dusk Trade. But the Dusk Trade page currently still just directs users to join a waitlist. And in the development updates from August 10 to 17, DuskEVM is still doing devnet rehearsal-related work.
I acknowledge the technical progress, and I also acknowledge the RWA direction—but tokenomics can’t rely forever on explaining value with the idea that “future assets will come on-chain.”
What I’d really like to see is: how much total asset value is already on-chain? How much Gas is generated per month? How much of the newly added incentives can actual transaction fees cover? After institutions use Dusk, do they necessarily need to keep buying DUSK?
If these numbers keep being slow to materialize, then in essence, the current model is still relying on inflation to fund security first, and then betting that future usage will bring the value back.
That’s my biggest question about DUSK right now.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Officially, the use cases for DUSK are stated very plainly right now: Gas + Staking. The problem is that both kinds of demand highly depend on real people actively trading on-chain. At the same time, the supply side has already been written into the protocol in advance: an initial 500 million tokens, plus another 500 million tokens planned to be released over 36 years. Just in the first four years alone, roughly 250.48 million tokens are expected to be released—about 19.86 tokens per block.
Even more noteworthy is that the block rewards aren’t only transaction fees; they also include newly issued tokens. In addition, the development fund takes a fixed 10%, the verification and confirmation committee each take 5%, and the block producer gets 70% plus up to an additional 10%. The transaction fees themselves also feed into the block reward redistribution rather than being simply burned in full.
So I think the real pressure point for Dusk is this: incentives are certain, but demand still needs real-world business execution to prove itself.
On August 15, the official messaging was still about tokenizing SMEs’ assets, NPEX, and Dusk Trade. But the Dusk Trade page currently still just directs users to join a waitlist. And in the development updates from August 10 to 17, DuskEVM is still doing devnet rehearsal-related work.
I acknowledge the technical progress, and I also acknowledge the RWA direction—but tokenomics can’t rely forever on explaining value with the idea that “future assets will come on-chain.”
What I’d really like to see is: how much total asset value is already on-chain? How much Gas is generated per month? How much of the newly added incentives can actual transaction fees cover? After institutions use Dusk, do they necessarily need to keep buying DUSK?
If these numbers keep being slow to materialize, then in essence, the current model is still relying on inflation to fund security first, and then betting that future usage will bring the value back.
That’s my biggest question about DUSK right now.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk