温热资本

Axis was a quick-turnaround project, and I didn’t farm enough. The most legit project of 2026. It could’ve hit A6 with a single token—shame I didn’t stick with it.

The rewards for the Arc Chain event have been distributed. I managed to get 60 USDT too. Many thanks to Binance for the event.

#nil $NIL @Nillion
Dusk, the first release of Nillion’s core product Covenants, has launched on Ethereum mainnet—a major step forward for the Encrypted Markets roadmap. What I like most about Covenants is that it lets you encrypt trading instructions and post them on-chain, where they remain locked until specific price or time conditions are met. They then execute without relying on any single trusted party or keeper. This keeps strategies hidden until execution and helps prevent front-running and sandwich attacks. With Dusk now live on mainnet and Nillion continuing to advance its seven-stage roadmap, I’m most excited to see Darkfall expand Covenants to more EVM chains, add support for more flexible custom conditions, and further improve the node network and developer tools—so private trading can truly become part of everyday life.
I’m very bullish on NIL’s future development.
My position says it all 👇

Safety Thursday Learn Safety Knowledge

Participate in the Binance Mid-Autumn Festival Campaign

At the Binance Summer Camp,
what I like most is the gamified design of “learn while earning.” Every day there’s a 10-minute lesson plus a short quiz—turning the otherwise dull blockchain knowledge into a quest with checkpoints. You can also unlock exclusive badges and a graduation certificate. After sticking with it for 10 days, not only did I systematically learn Web3 knowledge, but I also got a chance to share a 10,000 USDC reward pool. This kind of positive feedback loop really gets you hooked!
I’ve already checked in for Day 10—keep going! 💪
#币安夏令营 #BinanceSummerCamp #Web3 learning

From Mid-Autumn Festival to Here All Year Long, Win Great Prizes with Binance

This Biden’s son coming to issue coins is a pure scam. In less than a week, it’s already gone to zero. I don’t know if any brothers bought in after it started trading.

Anzi has been handing out benefits to everyone again. In the search bar, just search for the trading robot. There’s a 10U grid package with a guaranteed compensation voucher—take it and you’re good to go.
When creating your grid, don’t copy someone else’s. Find one with higher volatility and create it manually yourself. Set your stop-loss at 9U—just set it and you’re fine.
Basically, there’s one like this every month. If you’re lucky and manage to get it back out, it feels great.

A few days ago, I chatted with a friend who works on fixed-income products. He said that nowadays a lot of RWA projects are being promoted, and it creates an illusion: if you split the assets finely enough, liquidity will naturally come. After hearing that, I went back and repeatedly reviewed the relevant documents of #Dusk , and it really resonated with me.

In my view, asset fragmentation only lowers the entry barrier—it cannot conjure buyers and sellers out of thin air. For example, if you break a large house into many smaller shares, regular people can afford them, but that doesn’t mean anyone is willing to take your chips. A transaction can run normally requires genuine demand, price discovery, payment rails, and compliant venues—all of which must be in place. Without any one of them, it’s hard to make it work.

With this native issuance of @Dusk , issuance, registration, transfer, and settlement are consolidated into a single chain-based workflow. This genuinely reduces the hassles of reconciliation in the middle. $DUSK serves as the underlying fuel to support the entire system’s operation. But technology can only optimize processes—it cannot create market demand. Just like BTC and ETH can also support asset tokenization, they still don’t automatically bring qualified investors and sufficient market-making power.

When I look at RWA projects, I don’t judge their quality based on the smallest purchasable unit. What I care more about after launch is whether there are real counterparties, continuous trading, reasonable spreads, and stable settlement. For many Dusk products right now, they’re still in an iteration phase; we need to keep observing on-chain real business activity, market-making participation, and daily active metrics.

No matter how beautiful the technical infrastructure looks, without real participants it’s only an attractive framework. In the crypto world, we often fantasize about rebuilding traditional finance on-chain, but liquidity has never been “written” by code. It’s built one real trade at a time.

What do you think about the RWA development potential of $DUSK ?

Let’s talk about this thing, #Dusk . First, my take: the SBA consensus design is so out-of-the-box that I’ve got to applaud the creativity—but if we’re going to hype it, I still have to hold my breath.

Look at this mechanism: the Generator and the Provisioner are completely separated. The first one wears a mask the whole time, selects blocks blindly via private-key-based lottery, and nobody knows who actually did the work—an absolute invisible actor. The second one stakes openly, handles the wrap-up and the final say; if something goes wrong, they’ll come after you directly for accountability. It’s basically splitting “anonymous assassin” and “on-site supervisor” into two separate jobs, instead of trying to both hide and reveal like some other projects do. In the end, you get a mismatched四不像. Honestly, I buy this logic: privacy stays with the proposer, accountability sits with the committee—each role does its part, and that’s clearly stronger than those over-complicated, hard-bending consensus approaches.

But if I dig into the base layer, I can’t shake a concern in my gut: two different staking thresholds—doesn’t that basically look like a backdoor for the big players? If small players want to be Generators, they may lack the computing power. If they want to be Provisioners, their wallet isn’t thick enough. Over time, most nodes will probably be scooped up by that bunch of “mining bullies,” and won’t that make the rich-and-richer outcome no different from PoS? Of course, you can’t say it for sure—we still need on-chain data to prove it. If the big guys truly control the market, then even if privacy looks great, it’ll just be castles in the air, right?

Looking long-term, I’m the type who’s willing to bet. If @Dusk can survive real-world testing for two or three years, it’s definitely an undervalued potential stock in the market. Because it punctures an old misconception: do privacy and accountability have to be tied together? Separating them can be more flexible and more resistant to being stress-tested. This is far more clever than those black-and-white projects—it opens up a new way of thinking for the industry, and its value definitely hasn’t been fully unlocked.

Finally, circling back to the token $DUSK : the consensus has only just run, the ecosystem isn’t hot yet, so the price is probably stuck on the floor. But the risks are also laid bare—if the staking thresholds aren’t adjusted, then community consensus is just a nice-sounding line. What’s your stance? Cast your vote:

In the comments, don’t lurk—say something!

Seeing those “beautiful numbers” of funding and collateralization like @Dusk , my first reaction is not excitement, but suspicion. It’s like seeing a long line outside a restaurant, only to go in and find that the dishes haven’t all come out yet, and the servers are flustered.

What I really care about are the “honest” data on-chain linked to $DUSK . After browsing around, I found that many core functions are still under testing, there are few mainnet transactions, not many active users, and the on-chain asset scale is also small. This is a bit far from its self-described positioning as an “institution-level financial public chain.” High collateralization is more like using rewards to lock up coins—it can only show how many coins someone holds, not how many people are truly using it.

I always feel that user acquisition is like cutting the ribbon at opening day—lively for a moment; retention is the real skill. Like the first day of school, having lots of people doesn’t mean much. What matters is how many are still willing to come back for class by the end of the semester—this is what shows whether the teachers are any good. Once incentives stop, whether users still voluntarily come back is the key to whether a project can live on.

I do have expectations for #Dusk —privacy needs do exist. But I want to know more: when the subsidies are gone and the hype fades, what will keep people around? Is the technology genuinely useful, or is the ecosystem genuinely rich? These questions matter far more than the size of its funding.

In the end, I’d rather see a small project that improves slowly every day than chase an empty fantasy where the numbers look good but nobody sticks around. In the crypto world, living long matters more than running fast.

After tidying up my computer at night, I casually ran a privacy transfer test for @Dusk . The fan whirred and spun like crazy—I stood there for a while before I even reacted. Turns out that institutional-grade privacy, when deployed on an ordinary computer, feels like this. I went through quite a number of documents, and I have a lot of thoughts I can’t keep to myself.

Simply put, the privacy transfer for @Dusk is like sending a sealed letter: it should be able to complete quietly. But on my end, it took a full thirty-eight seconds to generate the encrypted proof. The official codebase even plainly notes that it’s still not stable. Ordinary users don’t care about complicated cryptography jargon—they only know that once you click to send the transfer, the computer instantly turns into a space heater.

When it comes to security, you also can’t just look at the marketing. Before, there was a leak involving the underlying cryptographic module—theoretically, it could be used to forge transactions, and the potential impact would be significant. Even though it’s been fixed, it’s still clear that the core components are still being refined. So many times, the flashy storytelling can’t hide the reality that the underlying system still hasn’t fully run end-to-end.

Following that, I also paid attention to the order book. The price of $DUSK has dropped more than 90% from its historical high. The depth is extremely thin—one message can drive meaningful fluctuations. The mainnet is live, but many key functions are still in the testing stage. As for the partnership assets promoted to the outside world, they’re currently only offline holdings; they aren’t truly flowing and circulating on-chain continuously.

I only kept a tiny position to observe, and I absolutely didn’t dare to use leverage to bet on the so-called European RWA narrative. In my view, it’s more like gambling on a license options contract. I’ll be patient and wait for the real closed loop to land—on-chain asset distributions—or for the mainnet to show solid, observable Gas consumption. At least once one of these actually comes through, then I’ll re-evaluate seriously.

After watching enough on-chain projects, I gradually understood this: no matter how pretty the technical drawings look, it doesn’t mean reality will arrive on schedule. Many people chase institutional narratives, but what they really want is a piece of steady certainty. The problem is, that certainty is slowly turning into a luxury item in this space—#DUSK

#dusk $DUSK Brothers, I’m just going to lay it out today: even if the DUSK RWA narrative sounds good, I’ve already gone short. It’s not that I don’t believe in it—it's that the meat in the order book has already been chewed up by the market makers.

First, let’s talk about my track record. Last year, I made $86k in three months by doing cross-exchange order-book mispricing arbitrage using @Dusk . This coin has a thin order book, and the spot amount has hovered around 30–120 million U for ages. As soon as a slightly bigger order comes in, the bid-ask spread can widen by over 1% for you. Back then, I set a 1.8% deviation threshold, and my one-sided position control was tight—so tight I was terrified of getting dumped and then reverse-slammed.

After deducting fees and slippage, each trip netted me about 0.7%–1.1%. In total I ran the loop 53 times end-to-end. The money felt more solid than scraping for tiny scalping profits.

Second, this job is truly exhausting. Arbitrage opportunities are on the millisecond level. Being woken up by alerts in the middle of the night is the norm. I barely have any hair left from staying up like that. But by June this year, things changed. Several market makers entered and cleaned up the order book—so thoroughly that the cross-exchange price spread narrowed from more than 1% to within 0.3%.

With only this much room, it can’t even cover Gas fees. It’s a completely invalid market.

Also, don’t get it twisted: even if the RWA sector is all the rage right now—things like “real-world assets” and “institutions entering”—it sounds like there’s big-picture strategy. But for us arbitrageurs, the only real truth is the secondary-market order book. The narrative is for holders to watch. The order-book spread is what arbitrageurs eat. Once the benefits are gone, it’s time to cut like a lizard losing its tail—close out the strategy position and leave. Don’t linger.

To sum up my actions: with DUSK’s current order book, I’m not doing “brick-and-mortar” anymore. It’s just a waste of electricity. As for the secondary spot—yes, the RWA theme sounds sexy, but the valuation isn’t cheap anymore. If you compare it with ONDO, another RWA concept, the market caps are roughly similar, but the liquidity is worse by a notch. If you still want to “have vision,” weigh it yourself. This old weed investor only believes in the order book, not stories.

The above is just my personal opinion, and I might end up being wrong in the end. Everyone—before investing in $dusk, make sure to DYOR. If you profit, don’t thank me; if you lose, don’t blame me.

#dusk $DUSK Recap @ DUSK: I didn’t see any abnormal price movement on the board; instead, I sat down and went through its SA consensus. Dusk now calls this setup “Succinct Attestation.” A few years ago, the whitepaper referred to it as “SBA.” At its core, it’s still committee-based PoS, but the selection logic has some interesting details.

In each round, a generator is first selected from among the stakers to produce a block. Then two committees perform reduction and agreement in two stages. The proposal, verification, and approval are split into three parts so the same group can’t both come up with the questions and stamp the outcome.

The committee selection uses deterministic sortition: it takes the previous round’s seed, the round number, and the step, feeds them into SHA3, and filters candidates by the staked-weight. The seed itself is derived from the block producer’s private key signature of the prior round’s seed. So for the next round, who ends up participating can’t be guessed even by the involved party before they sign—it’s cleaner than a fixed-seat pool.

BLS aggregation compresses the committee signatures, and the block progresses through accepted → attested → confirmed → final, gradually converging at each stage. The deterministic finality stated on the official site is roughly 10 seconds; under the normal path, there’s no fork.

But I have a lingering question: as committees get smaller, communication is cheaper. Yet with smaller committees, edge nodes going offline, clock drift, or the generator intentionally delaying broadcast might not show up during the low-traffic period on the mainnet. When you truly hit the institutional settlement peak, will the reduction step get stuck and result in empty blocks? The reward structure and voting-eligibility constraints can mitigate this to some extent, but they aren’t a guaranteed “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

The algorithm looks solid on paper; to evaluate reliability, you have to throw it into sustained high-pressure conditions—watch the block production rhythm and where rollback boundaries occur. That’s the real test for Dusk building a regulated-finance-grade base layer.

#termmax
Recently, Binance Square and wallet have launched TMX’s new-user tasks. The entry barrier is low and the cycle is still short—this is definitely a great early opportunity with big potential upside. It immediately sparked my research interest! After working deep in the crypto space for so long, I had always assumed that on-chain lending and borrowing is basically like Aave-style floating-rate lending—everything depends on market conditions, and I’ve always felt especially insecure.

But after diving deeper into @TermMax , my perspective completely changed! If you’ve had experience in fixed-income operations, you’ll know this isn’t ordinary DeFi at all. It essentially takes the well-established traditional bond trading system and fully replicates it on-chain—the logic is particularly solid.

Its innovative three-token design is truly impressive: FT is comparable to traditional zero-coupon bonds. Users buy at a discount and earn stable returns through maturity redemption; XT separates the interest-rate exposure on its own, flexibly adapting to different trading needs. Together, they can recreate the complete debt token. It also uses Range Order matching for pricing, replacing rigid formula-based pricing—perfectly aligned with real fixed-income trading logic.

What’s also especially thoughtful is the GT token. It packages collateralized debt positions into freely transferable units, giving players more flexible ways to exit. The risk-management logic is what I recognize and appreciate the most: it doesn’t rely on institutional credit as a safety net. Instead, it implements physical settlement through code—doesn’t dodge default risk, sets asset-allocation rules in advance, and keeps everything open, transparent, and not full of tricks.

To be honest, TMX doesn’t come with flashy speculation narratives. It simply “on-chain-ifies” a mature fixed-income model, using collateral to replace credit-based backstops. Even though the development pace isn’t fast, the underlying architecture and risk-control logic far surpass most lending projects out there.

Next, I’ll continue to dig into its arbitrage strategies and how it unlocks the trading order book. Everyone—what kind of development potential do you think TMX has most?

#termmax @TermMax to be honest, last night when the market was whipsawing with those upward and downward spikes, I watched TermMax’s auto-renewal interface for quite a while. The feature is marketed as “Dutch auction fixed interest rate, fully automated—no need to manage it,” which sounds great at first glance and is perfect for someone like me who’s too lazy to get up in the middle of the night and monitor positions.

But here’s the interesting part: when I looked through the on-chain data, I realized that TermMax is still fundamentally a bet on whether the Keeper robot network is “diligent” enough. Those robots also need to make money. If gas is expensive and position returns are thin, it’s completely normal for them to stop working and not submit bids. So I started wondering: if we ever reach some dark moment like a chain of liquidations, and the Keepers collectively go silent—will my position just be exposed and left completely naked?

I think the team’s emphasis on “no manual intervention required” isn’t enough. They need to bring some solid evidence. I see reliability as four key metrics: first, how many active Keepers are there in reality? Don’t just keep looping over the same two or three addresses running; second, are the execution shares of the top few unusually high? What does that say about node centralization risk? Third, under extreme market conditions, does the auction timing stretch from minutes to hours? Fourth, if cross-chain fails, is there a Plan B?

Now, the stress tests are all too rosy and tidy. To be honest, you can’t tell whether there’s real competence. The biggest paradox of automation is: when the market most needs it to work steadily, that’s often exactly when it’s most likely to malfunction.

In the voting segment, everyone picks and votes to see:

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

I just came across the Dusk project and it really has substance. To be honest, I’ve seen plenty of RWA projects being hyped in the market—at the end of the day, it’s usually just taking a picture of assets, putting them on-chain, and then calling it a day. But this time, Dusk partnering with the Dutch-licensed exchange NPEX—I think they’ve actually hit the core.

In the past, when we talked about moving things on-chain, we always thought it was simply turning equity into tokens and that would be done. But what Dusk is doing is different—issuance, approval, trading, settlement, and public data: they put the entire pipeline onto the chain for you. A €300 million real-world asset pool from a physical small company isn’t a fantasy, isn’t a mirror—it’s tangible, real inventory you can actually touch.

What’s most satisfying is that it fixes an old problem. With earlier STOs, once they were done, the assets basically just sat there—if they could even trade once every six months, that would be considered pretty good. With Dusk’s setup, once the assets are on-chain, they can be bought and sold anytime, money settles instantly, and liquidity is basically maxed out. And rules like who can buy and how identity is verified are all handled by code, cutting out that middleman layer and peeling off the “rent” they take.

But I’m also a bit worried: Europe is so tightly regulated, and NPEX is licensed—so the cost of staying compliant can’t be low. Would those small companies really be willing to pay for this? After all, the old ways are slow and clunky, but they save money.

My take is this: the value of tokenization isn’t just the token’s “skin.” It’s moving the entire life cycle of the asset—from birth to death—onto the chain, so money can start flowing again. Dusk’s move goes much deeper than I expected.

Let’s discuss—what kind are you bullish on?👇

See you in the comments.

#termmax @TermMax
Don’t let the words “standardized” fool you—TermMax’s vault water runs deep

Brothers, I just shouted “fixed-rate drive is all you need” yesterday. Today, after reading the detailed explanation of Vault V2’s mechanism, I realized I made a really stupid mistake.

The moment I saw the four characters “standardized vault,” my brain instantly short-circuited—I thought every Vault strategy was basically the same quality, and you could just pick any one and lie back and win. But here’s the catch: what’s standardized is the shares, not the curators’ judgment, guys!

TermMax does delegate the dirty work—term selection, order book, interest rate curves—to the curators. Sounds convenient, right? But the issue is this: ERC-4626 only specifies what the “bucket” looks like; it doesn’t say whether the bucket contains fine Maotai or cheap erguotou.

The curators hold the order execution power, the shape of the curve, and the position limits. The time lock and whitelist are basically just a “get-off window.” But if you run into collateral blowing up, oracle manipulation, or liquidity drying up—can you bail out fast enough, quicker than the market crashes?

So I advise everyone: don’t get all fired up and go all-in just by staring at TVL and APY. I summed up four hard metrics you absolutely must dig into: net yield (that accounting APY is mostly fake), capital utilization rate, position concentration, and—most importantly—redemption slippage under stress tests. When the market breaks, whether you can actually run out by net asset value is what matters.

Vault V2 indeed did something worthwhile: it makes the curator’s actions auditable. But a mature vault must lay out the strategy adjustment logic, fee structure, exit conditions, and even the “brake mechanism” for you to see. To put it bluntly, only vaults that can still let you redeem calmly during low-incentive or even zero-incentive periods—when the market drops like crazy—deserve to be your stable on-ramp.

There’s less than a week until TGE (Aug 25). While there’s still time, take a deeper look under the hood of the curators—don’t wait until you’re trapped and then facepalm.

Today’s discussion: what do you care about most when choosing a DeFi vault?

Jump into the comments—brothers who picked Option A are advised to cool down for three seconds first.

#dusk $DUSK
@Dusk
Last night I looked through Dusk-related materials and stared at the description of its dual-rail architecture for quite a while. To be honest, when most people discuss this chain, their first concern is the strength of Phoenix’s privacy encryption. But once you dig deeper, you realize the real bottleneck for institutional deployment isn’t whether the privacy is strong enough.

Dusk’s mainnet combines a Phoenix privacy rail with a Moonlight transparent rail—two different environments running on-chain at the same time. It sounds perfect. But when you put it into real business scenarios like asset management issuing bonds, the contradictions show up. If the entire transaction process is private, regulators would need to maintain an additional set of disclosure keys, and the compliance management costs become very high. If it’s completely public and transparent, then the institution’s accumulation and rebalancing trajectories can be fully tracked by counterparties, and trade secrets are essentially exposed.

Many people think that by using two modes together and taking a hybrid path, you can resolve the dilemma. But I’ve found that what truly blocks liquidity isn’t just anything abstract—it’s the friction caused by crossing privacy boundaries. Bridge interactions across rails, ZK parameter caching—each point adds usage friction. Beyond that, there are also several hidden risks: data residue issues caused by cross-chain operations, oracle data correlations, and differences across regions in how strongly ZK evidence is legally accepted. These real-world problems are rarely discussed in whitepapers.

So the more I think about it, the more I believe institutions don’t want airtight absolute privacy. Their core need is that when compliance requirements come in, they can achieve minimal necessary disclosure—without having to lay out all transaction data in full.

Whether paper mechanisms can stand up to real-world regulatory scrutiny is the true test. In future regulatory events, can privacy positions self-verify without disclosing unnecessary information? That’s the privacy institutions are willing to pay for. No matter how beautiful the architecture looks, if it can’t get past the friction of reality and scrutiny, it can only remain theoretical.

So here’s the question: Do you think Dusk’s minimal-disclosure privacy design can convince traditional financial institutions to enter the market?