#dusk Guys, the most exciting thing happening in the DUSK community lately, in my opinion, isn’t any new RWA partnership—it’s the OpenDusk governance vote.
My first reaction was also, “What new gimmick are they cooking up this time?” But after thinking it through, this matter could run deeper than we think. Because if this vote passes, it will directly change DUSK’s economic cycle: the block rewards that were originally meant to be burned would instead be injected into a community treasury to invest in the ecosystem.
You might ask, “Isn’t burning a good thing? Deflation!” I thought so too. But later I looked at it from another angle and did the math: burning contracts supply, but if the treasury investments are run well, they could potentially stimulate demand on the network. So the key is whether this money can genuinely help developers and applications—turning into real users and on-chain transaction volume. If it can, then burning a bit less—$DUSK —is actually more worthwhile: you trade a little of the short-term deflation narrative for long-term value capture.
I think the team behind the project—@Dusk —played this move pretty smartly. Look at what they’ve done this year: DuskEVM, which lets Ethereum developers migrate over at low cost; and in the RWA space, the collaboration with the Dutch licensed exchange NPEX has already started rolling out. These are all about lowering the barrier and expanding the institutional market. So the significance of this vote may not just be “where the money goes,” but also a sign that Dusk is evolving from a single product into a network that can autonomously allocate capital.
Of course, there are also doubts—how will the treasury funds be spent? Who decides? Will it turn into a game for the big holders? These are real, solid concerns.
In the end, the real yardstick isn’t the amount burned, but whether network value can be amplified as a result.
With that said, I’d like to hear what the brothers think—after the OpenDusk treasury vote passes, how do you think DUSK’s trajectory will go?
My first reaction was also, “What new gimmick are they cooking up this time?” But after thinking it through, this matter could run deeper than we think. Because if this vote passes, it will directly change DUSK’s economic cycle: the block rewards that were originally meant to be burned would instead be injected into a community treasury to invest in the ecosystem.
You might ask, “Isn’t burning a good thing? Deflation!” I thought so too. But later I looked at it from another angle and did the math: burning contracts supply, but if the treasury investments are run well, they could potentially stimulate demand on the network. So the key is whether this money can genuinely help developers and applications—turning into real users and on-chain transaction volume. If it can, then burning a bit less—$DUSK —is actually more worthwhile: you trade a little of the short-term deflation narrative for long-term value capture.
I think the team behind the project—@Dusk —played this move pretty smartly. Look at what they’ve done this year: DuskEVM, which lets Ethereum developers migrate over at low cost; and in the RWA space, the collaboration with the Dutch licensed exchange NPEX has already started rolling out. These are all about lowering the barrier and expanding the institutional market. So the significance of this vote may not just be “where the money goes,” but also a sign that Dusk is evolving from a single product into a network that can autonomously allocate capital.
Of course, there are also doubts—how will the treasury funds be spent? Who decides? Will it turn into a game for the big holders? These are real, solid concerns.
In the end, the real yardstick isn’t the amount burned, but whether network value can be amplified as a result.
With that said, I’d like to hear what the brothers think—after the OpenDusk treasury vote passes, how do you think DUSK’s trajectory will go?
A. 短期利空，长期利好，洗盘后起飞
100%
B. 金库若成大户提款机，币价承压走弱
0%
C. 没啥影响，还得看RWA落地和数据
0%
1 votes • Voting closed