I’m watching @Dusk right now, and the question I most want to ask isn’t anymore “Can RWA really take off?” but rather: after RWA truly gets going, how does its value get back to $DUSK ?
This question is actually pretty crucial.
Dusk’s official website has already posted three very impressive numbers: confirmed issuance size of €300 million+, coverage of 50,000+ investors, and more than 210 million DUSK staked. Recently, the team has continued pushing NPEX, SME private placements in the market, and Dusk Trade—basically the whole set of regulated asset on-chain logic.
The business story is indeed becoming more and more complete.
But when I look back at tokenomics, I feel there’s a very clear gap here:
At the moment, the most direct demand for DUSK is still Gas + Staking. And staking rewards aren’t entirely sourced from real business revenue. The protocol also plans to keep releasing up to 500 million DUSK for the next 36 years. In third-party network data, as of August 23, total on-chain staking across the network has already reached about 215.6 million DUSK, and the APR is still around 22%.
So I’m a bit conflicted.
If now the high yield mainly relies on additional issuance, then at its core it’s still “using future-released rewards to stake today’s stakers.” For this model to work long-term, it ultimately must be taken over by on-chain transaction fees.
But the problem is exactly here: €300 million in assets on-chain sounds huge, but an “asset’s size” doesn’t equal “DUSK buy orders.” How much on-chain trading do these assets actually generate? How much Gas? Can the fee revenue cover how much additional issuance is being created? In practice, it’s very hard for ordinary token holders to figure out that accounting.
Also, after fees enter the block rewards, they mostly get redistributed again to validators and funds—not simply and straightforwardly burned in full.
So my biggest doubt about Dusk right now isn’t that there’s no business—it’s that the business is already running forward, yet token value capture still hasn’t been proven clearly enough.
Going forward, what we truly should look at isn’t how many billions of RWA have been signed, but rather: how much real, ongoing, non-subsidy demand these hundreds of millions in assets actually bring to DUSK every month.
That number is more important than any cooperation announcement.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
This question is actually pretty crucial.
Dusk’s official website has already posted three very impressive numbers: confirmed issuance size of €300 million+, coverage of 50,000+ investors, and more than 210 million DUSK staked. Recently, the team has continued pushing NPEX, SME private placements in the market, and Dusk Trade—basically the whole set of regulated asset on-chain logic.
The business story is indeed becoming more and more complete.
But when I look back at tokenomics, I feel there’s a very clear gap here:
At the moment, the most direct demand for DUSK is still Gas + Staking. And staking rewards aren’t entirely sourced from real business revenue. The protocol also plans to keep releasing up to 500 million DUSK for the next 36 years. In third-party network data, as of August 23, total on-chain staking across the network has already reached about 215.6 million DUSK, and the APR is still around 22%.
So I’m a bit conflicted.
If now the high yield mainly relies on additional issuance, then at its core it’s still “using future-released rewards to stake today’s stakers.” For this model to work long-term, it ultimately must be taken over by on-chain transaction fees.
But the problem is exactly here: €300 million in assets on-chain sounds huge, but an “asset’s size” doesn’t equal “DUSK buy orders.” How much on-chain trading do these assets actually generate? How much Gas? Can the fee revenue cover how much additional issuance is being created? In practice, it’s very hard for ordinary token holders to figure out that accounting.
Also, after fees enter the block rewards, they mostly get redistributed again to validators and funds—not simply and straightforwardly burned in full.
So my biggest doubt about Dusk right now isn’t that there’s no business—it’s that the business is already running forward, yet token value capture still hasn’t been proven clearly enough.
Going forward, what we truly should look at isn’t how many billions of RWA have been signed, but rather: how much real, ongoing, non-subsidy demand these hundreds of millions in assets actually bring to DUSK every month.
That number is more important than any cooperation announcement.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
