代号-9527

I only resent myself for studying too little and getting poor grades, so I can’t get into Peking University.
Otherwise, I could also preach big principles like this guy—
lofty and condescending, lecturing everyone from on high.
You and I are both the lowest-level freelancers in society, just a bunch of worthless coin-flippers. Bad luck can’t be blamed on society—this is a “benefit.”
…
I’ve recently been reading the content of $DUSK , and I keep seeing the concept of “native issuance.”
In their blog post “Tokenization is Good: Native Issuance is Better,” they say that many RWA projects are now basically wrapping real-world assets in an outer layer and moving them onto the chain, while the assets still run on traditional systems. With true native issuance, the assets are generated directly on-chain; compliance, trading, and dividend rules are written into the protocol’s underlying layer—not just moving the assets over. The idea sounds great.

But when I look through various materials myself, I feel there’s still a gap between the ideal and reality.

Take EURQ, the digital euro they place a lot of emphasis on. This asset is deployed on multiple chains—Ethereum and several others like Polygon. Dusk is only one of the partnership options. From the public reports Quantoz has released, there isn’t much of the reserves and main trading happening on the Dusk chain. For a purpose-built chain for native issuance, I can’t see any clear unique advantages in the core settlement asset area.

NPEX has been publicizing partnership news a lot—serving more than 100 companies, with plans to move over 300 million securities onto DuskTrade. I casually checked DeFiLlama and saw that Dusk’s TVL is basically zero 🤔

If there really were a large amount of securities that successfully completed native on-chain issuance, you’d expect to see some traces of custody and trading on-chain at least to some degree. But the publicly available data—and the partnership scale they claim—seem to not quite match.

As for Citadel’s ZK-KYC: the fact that on-chain it only outputs compliance proofs and doesn’t require leaking personal information—I think that’s also quite good. But whether you can obtain participation eligibility is still ultimately controlled by off-chain identity service providers. They say native compliance at the protocol layer, but at this stage it still feels more like a bundle of “on-chain privacy + off-chain services” pieced together.

Dusk does have some accumulated work in ZK and adapting to MiCA regulation. But as for this “native issuance,” it currently still feels more like it’s lingering at the promotional level.

I see a flood of good-news headlines about partnerships, but there isn’t much real, observable stuff on-chain. This really affects my decision on building a position. I’ll choose to observe for now—I won’t rush in just chasing the narrative.
#dusk @Dusk ～

I’ve been keeping an eye on Dusk’s audited privacy. The mechanism that Phoenix is promoting sounds very compelling: it hides the transaction sender and amounts, and it also supports selective disclosure to meet compliance requirements under MiCA and travel rule regulations. It sounds almost like a perfect solution—so how is it to use in practice? I specifically ran tests on the testnet to verify.

Simply initiating a Phoenix private transfer works fine. After you confirm the signature, it’s quickly committed on-chain. The real bottleneck is in the next step: generating the compliance evidence.

To create a cryptographic proof of the source of funds, there’s no corresponding operation entry in the wallet client. I went to check related issues on GitHub—more than one test user has raised the same concern. At the moment, it only seems you can manually export the proof materials using the command-line CLI tool. Ordinary users most likely will just be left staring at it.

I think that’s a bit awkward, honestly. The project has been positioning itself in the institutional RWA track, relying on the story of compliant privacy and audited, verifiable narratives to set expectations. Selective disclosure is a compliance “must-have,” yet the threshold is so high that it’s something ordinary people and even many small/mid institutions can’t realistically figure out.

In traditional finance, exporting transaction records is done with a single click. But for Dusk’s compliance evidence, you still have to write code to make it happen. You have to admit: implementing the technical logic and being able to deploy it for real commercial use are completely different things.

Right now, this functionality looks more like a lab technical demo than a mature, usable product. Such an extremely high usability barrier will not only discourage a large number of retail users, but may also slow down the onboarding progress for later small and mid-sized institutions.

Of course, I’m not going to make a final judgment about the project based solely on this experience. But this is a very real usability problem—if it isn’t improved over the long term, I think it could affect the project’s deployment timeline.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk .

A-Z is getting liquidated again and again, and has once more blown up the account.
And I’m back to apologizing to the folks at home.

I’m not quite sure what’s going on.
Boss Xu was sentenced in the first instance.
Is A-Z’s situation basically the same?
…

I’ve been paying attention to Dusk for a while. Seeing how they market it externally, they say it’s both a permissionless chain and can also handle regulated securities business for licensed institutions, so both retail users and institutions can participate.

When I read this, I felt a bit uneasy.

Everyone knows what “truly permissionless” means: anyone can deploy contracts without going through approvals, and directly interact with on-chain applications—there are no人为-set barriers or gatekeeping.

But regulated securities business is a completely different logic. For institutions, there are hard requirements like whitelists and identity verification. Users who don’t meet the qualifications will be blocked outright.

Running both on the same chain is, frankly, hard to balance.

Going forward, if the institutional business grows and takes up an increasing share, then to satisfy regulation it will inevitably add more and more access restrictions. In that case, the “permissionless” message they’ve been promoting will be gradually weakened.

But if they cling to full openness—no permission controls for any accounts—then licensed institutions would basically never dare to put regulated securities on it. Compliance would simply not pass.

The official team uses a Citadel identity module, intending to solve this problem with selective disclosure. But no matter how nicely the technical whitepaper is written, it doesn’t mean real-world regulators will fully buy it. Once real securities assets actually run on-chain, tangible compliance pressure will come in full force.

I’m worried about a scenario like this: officially, it’s still a permissionless public chain, but all the truly high-value core securities business is locked behind a whitelist system. Ordinary users can only touch some trivial, unrelated applications, and can’t participate in the most essential scenarios at all.

This idea is certainly very appealing—it’s like trying to take both the public-chain openness and the institutional finance “cake.” But in reality, if you want both sides, where is it ever that simple? I won’t outright deny this direction; it’s just that this objective conflict is the part I would pay extra attention to when looking at the project.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk .

The Dusk project team emphasizes native ZK cryptography and a newly developed consensus mechanism, positioning itself for institutional finance with a pitch of being secure and reliable. After digging through the technology stack, I still can’t shake the feeling of unease.

The Piecrust virtual machine, blind-auction bidding consensus, and the full set of Citadel identity components are all custom-built cryptography modules forged from scratch—not well-worn, off-the-shelf solutions that the industry has already run into the ground. The mainnet only went live in January 2026, so it hasn’t been running for very long.

Of course, multiple third-party audit reports provide a safety net, but audits can only catch logic issues at the paper level. Cryptography has a very practical problem: passing a paper audit doesn’t automatically mean everything is fine in real on-chain execution. Previously, even their own PLONK components had a proof-system vulnerability that the audit stage failed to detect.

A newly developed cryptographic system is most afraid of edge-case scenarios. Testnets can simulate all kinds of cases, but simulation will never replace the real-world pressure of the market. Institutional finance scenarios demand extremely high fault tolerance. If something goes wrong in a confidential securities transaction, the resulting losses will be directly amplified.

Right now, the network is mostly running pilots and small-scale use cases. It hasn’t yet been tempered by real business conditions involving large capital and high concurrency. Many people can easily develop a misconception: once the code audit is done, it effectively means the security loop is closed. But cryptographic vulnerabilities often only surface under extreme business scenarios.

In promotional events, the team packages its custom ZK and new consensus as core security advantages. But from another angle, building wheel from scratch inherently comes with higher unknown risks. Mature public chains have had countless attacks with real money gradually grinding down vulnerabilities. As for Dusk’s entirely new stack, the time for real-world validation is still far from sufficient.

I’m not trying to deny the depth of its technical R&D. The whole design approach tailored to compliant finance is indeed novel. It’s just that institutional-grade security has never relied on audit reports alone—it also requires time and real business to refine. When you see phrases like “native ZK” and “institutional-grade security,” keeping an extra layer of caution in your head is never a bad idea.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk .

There is a lot of content introducing Dusk, citing its GitHub repository, grant funding, and lists of institutional partnerships as evidence that the ecosystem is thriving. After reading through the code and the publicly available ecosystem list, I felt there is actually a disconnect.

The code is indeed open-sourced to the public, and the Rusk virtual machine and the cryptography component repositories continue to receive commits—there’s no denying that. But there is one detail that’s easy to overlook: some business contracts don’t release the complete source code; they only provide compiled interfaces. Developers can only call them and can’t see the original contract logic.

It’s not fully transparent open-source—there are black-box parts in the core business. Ordinary developers’ efforts to audit, reproduce, and carry out secondary modifications are limited. People say it’s an open-source public chain, but in terms of actual openness, the gap with something like Ethereum—where the underlying layer is completely open— is still quite significant.

Let’s talk about the ecosystem again. Official promotion is full of institutional cooperation, SDKs, cross-chain integrations, and high developer subsidies. But once you peel it back, the number of third-party native DeFi and DApp offerings is very small. Much of the so-called ecosystem output is demos and test prototypes made by the projects themselves. There are few products built by external developers who proactively come in to develop.

Some of the announced partnerships only remain at the level of technical exchanges and memorandums of intent. They are not deployed, interactive products that users can access on the mainnet. The toolchain is still being refined, and the onboarding barrier isn’t low either—so there’s considerable resistance for external developers to enter.

It’s easy to create a narrative illusion: packaging your own demos and intention-based collaborations as a mature ecosystem, giving the impression that a large number of applications are already up and running. But in reality, there aren’t many third-party products that ordinary users can actually use.

I don’t deny its technical foundation. There really is a lot of underlying cryptography work and accumulation. But open-source doesn’t automatically mean full openness—signing an intent to cooperate doesn’t mean the ecosystem is already running.

When looking at this kind of public chain, don’t just focus on star counts and partnership news. You should also look at how many external developers are willing to step in on their own, and how many ordinary users can genuinely use third-party applications. At least for now, Dusk is still in the early stages of construction, and the ecosystem narrative expectations appear to be somewhat overly discounted.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk .

After reading a lot of Dusk’s narratives, I’ve noticed they repeatedly tie their own outlook deeply to the EU’s MiCA, and emphasize to outsiders that the underlying design has been tailored from the start to fit this regulatory framework—privacy + compliance as ready-made infrastructure. But the more I read, the more I end up with an extra layer of concern: putting the project’s story behind a specific region’s piece of legislation inherently hides a fairly significant policy “black swan.”

MiCA is only the first version for now. The EU has already launched a public evaluation and revisions—what the market calls MiCA 2.0—so subsequent provisions may tighten at any time. What the documents say today can include authorization for audits and selective disclosure, but that doesn’t mean regulators will accept this logic in the future. If later regulations introduce stricter details and impose higher tracing requirements for private transactions and securities tokenization, then the entire technical design they’re so proud of could simply fail to keep up with the new rules.

There’s also a very practical distinction: “MiCA-compatible by design” at the protocol’s underlying technology level does not mean the project, or its tokens by nature, automatically receives a compliance pass. MiCA constrains service providers; even if the on-chain code is beautifully designed, institutions, applications, and the token issuance entities still need to obtain their own licenses and fulfill AML obligations separately. During marketing and promotion, it’s easy to portray “technical adaptation” as “already fully compliant”—and in reality, there’s a big gap between the two.

What’s even more troublesome is that implementation interpretations vary across countries. MiCA is the EU’s top-tier framework, but the 27 member states each interpret and execute it with their own standards, so there will be differences. Here, they may accept authorized-audit privacy; in another member state, they might directly reject the confidential securities model. When working with institutions, it’s not enough to understand the top-level law—each country still has to be cleared one by one.

Right now, a large part of the market’s valuation of Dusk already “price in” compliance expectations for EU RWA and confidential securities. If the regulatory stance later shifts, the foundation of this narrative could be shaken.

I’m not denying its direction of building compliant privacy—selective disclosure at the technical level is indeed an interesting solution. But from an investment perspective, you can’t assume MiCA will stay as friendly as it is now. The legislation will iterate, regulatory interpretations will evolve, and over-anchoring a single region’s regulatory narrative is itself a risk you can’t afford to ignore. #dusk $DUSK @Dusk .

I flipped through the XSC confidential securities standards that Dusk is pushing. The marketing really is polished—packaging RWA securities, privacy encryption, and on-chain compliance all into one standard. At the time, I thought there was already a large amount of real assets running.

After carefully going through the publicly available materials, though, it turns out most of it is still at the stage of frameworks, whitepapers, and concept demos.

XSC itself does have substance: compliance requirements such as whitelisting and lock-up periods are directly programmed as part of the smart contracts. Privacy protection also gives institutions a space for “controlled transparency”—able to prove compliance to regulators without having to disclose positions and trading details. The Dutch Financial Markets Authority (AFM) can audit holdings data and fund flow in real time via authorized keys, fulfilling the “transparent to regulators, confidential to the market” requirement under the MiFID II framework.

Then look at execution. NPEX, a licensed trading venue in the Netherlands, is the case most often cited for Dusk. It really has issued digital equities and bonds on top of it, with financing exceeding €200 million to date. DuskTrade also plans to put more than €300 million of tokenized securities on-chain.

But these figures need to be broken down carefully. The €200 million fundraising happened on NPEX, a traditional licensed exchange. While it uses Dusk’s underlying technology, the core trading and clearing still rely on NPEX’s compliance framework. As for the “upcoming” €300 million that will be on-chain, there’s still a gap compared with “already on-chain and generating sustained trading volume.” A user put it plainly at the core: “Liquidity is the real test.”

On the institutional side, the attitude is equally pragmatic. As one user put it in the community comments: “Would institutional investors trust a brand-new public chain? First they need to get rid of historical baggage.” Dusk isn’t the first to do RWA securities, and it isn’t the first to talk about privacy compliance—but between “the standard is written” and “institutions move real money in,” there are gaps: regulatory responsibility, system replacement costs, and historical baggage—issues that a technical standard alone can’t solve.

If you agree with the direction of RWA securities, the imagination for the track is indeed big. But you still need to evaluate each project clearly: what’s already proven and running, versus what’s still waiting for market validation. Don’t treat a thoroughly designed paper standard as a solution that has already been validated by the market
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～

A friend asked me how to look at Dusk—said the official marketing is really strong, that they’re building a Layer 1 specifically for RWA securities, and it feels like they’re about to take off.

I went digging through public information, and the more I looked, the less I felt sure.

First, being able to issue securities and having institutions willing to come is one thing; it’s another thing entirely.

Dusk has indeed done some things. The collaboration with the Netherlands-licensed exchange NPEX is real, and a 300 million euro scale is impressive. On the DuskEVM mainnet, they also truly completed the first settlement test for a regulated security token—so the technical framework does seem viable.

But after browsing for hours, I couldn’t find real cases that consistently generate trading volume. There are plenty of intended partnerships, but for actual commercial deployment, I haven’t seen much. There’s still a gap between “about to be on-chain” and “already on-chain and producing sustained trading volume.”

Second, Citadel’s identity layer naturally keeps retail users out.

All securities trading must go through compliant identity verification. No KYC means you can’t play—retail users can’t even reach the door. For institutions, though? Sure, they say they’re bullish on RWA. But who would dare to put real money into a chain that hasn’t yet been battle-tested at scale?

While institutions are waiting and watching, retail users can’t get in. Where does liquidity come from? Honestly, I didn’t see a very clear answer.

And then there’s all the partnership news—on the surface it looks quite respectable. The partnerships are real, and the licenses are real too. But “partners” and “commercial use cases that have already been fully run through” are two different things.

For the RWA securities direction, the long-term imagination is definitely big, and the track is certainly sexy. But I think this industry has a bad habit right now: as soon as you’re associated with institutional partnerships and the RWA narrative, people automatically assume the project will explode soon.

Dusk’s technical roadmap is on the right track—it's just that the real-world deployment speed may be much slower than the marketing suggests. Don’t treat grand narratives as facts that have already happened. I’m not denying the direction, but at least for now it’s still waiting for the first truly proven commercial case to run end-to-end.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～

Many people are optimistic about DUSK, and the core reason is that it offers a perfect narrative of “privacy + compliance” that is hard to resist.
The official promotion claims that transactions have privacy by default: user assets, transfer amounts, and addresses are encrypted end to end. At the same time, it supports regulator-initiated, on-demand selective disclosure, perfectly aligning with the EU MiCA framework—protecting users’ privacy while also meeting the compliance needs of institutions.

I delved deep into the Citadel ZK-KYC mechanism. To be honest, the theoretical model looks airtight, but the contradictions on the implementation level are very obvious.

A pure privacy public chain is simple: fully anonymous, impossible to trace. A pure compliance public chain is also simple: fully实名 (real-name), fully verifiable. But DUSK wants to take the hardest middle path: privacy in everyday use, but compliant traceability when needed.

It sounds like a win-win, but the biggest problem is that the boundaries of authority are too vague.
Who has the final disclosure power? What standards trigger the regulator’s request to obtain data? What users call “self-directed control of privacy” is, within the official framework, more like a slogan. If EU regulation tightens further—requiring full asset registration and full transaction traceability—this “selective disclosure” can easily turn into unconditional full disclosure at any time.

ZK technology can deliver mathematical-level privacy proofs, but it cannot solve accountability and authority issues in the real world of regulation. Without strong regulatory pressure right now, the mechanism looks like a win-win. But when policy is actually implemented, privacy priority will inevitably give way to compliance priority. The so-called “privacy safety net” is, in fact, very fragile.

There’s another point that’s easy to overlook: its privacy is not purely decentralized privacy—it’s privacy tied to an identity system.
Ordinary users appear anonymous, but the underlying Citadel retains compliance identity indexes. Once the regulator side initiates verification, all privacy transactions can be selectively broken down and reconstructed in a targeted way.

I recognize its innovative intent. In the RWA securities arena, absolute anonymity simply does not apply; institutional business does indeed require auditability.
But don’t let the market be fooled by the rhetoric: it’s not a privacy public chain—it’s a compliance privacy chain that can be decrypted at any time.

It may seem to cater to both sides, but in reality it’s constrained on both ends.
What normal privacy users want is absolute confidentiality; what institutions want is strong compliance traceability. The compromise mechanism DUSK offers looks perfect on the surface, but it ultimately traps itself in the most awkward middle ground.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～

The announcement is finally here—this week’s second new-coin airdrop: KII
Estimated for around 9 PM.
The allocation is pretty generous; it all comes down to how you handle it.
Personally, I don’t think it’ll be “sunshine everywhere” distribution.
Let’s get 242+ and 30,000 shares—estimate 100U+.

Recently, I dug into DUSK’s tokenomics, and I noticed many people are easily led astray by a seemingly positive headline.

According to the official materials, the initial 500 million tokens were fully unlocked as early as April 2022. The team, advisors, and early private-sale allocations have long since all been released into the market. Many people glance at the allocation table, see there’s no subsequent large team unlock, and instantly feel relieved—thinking the sell-pressure risk has already been ruled out.

But when I look further into the back half, that’s where the real tell is hidden. The original document says: “An additional 500 million DUSK to be emitted over a 36-year horizon, halving every four years.” In other words, there are another 500 million tokens to be slowly released over an entire 36 years in the form of staking/block rewards, with rewards halving every four years.

In the short term, there really isn’t the kind of earth-shattering massive unlock dump—this is something I won’t deny. But what does 36 years mean? That time span is simply too long. The increases released in the first four years are still quite substantial, and then they gradually taper off. Even if part of the newly minted tokens are locked on-chain via staking, the steady stream of newly added supply will, over the long run, continue to dilute the value of existing token holders.

Also, the early private-sale accounted for half of the initial allocation, and it has already been fully unlocked and circulating since 2022. Even though there aren’t new unlock events, those early big holders’ chips have long been freely tradable. For small-cap token projects, the market price is inherently quite susceptible to disturbances caused by large positions.

When people talk about token risks, most folks instinctively focus only on the team/institution unlock schedule, assuming that as long as there’s no large unlock, token supply is completely safe with no pressure. This DUSK design makes perfect use of the public’s way of thinking.

I’m not saying this model is entirely unreasonable. Long-cycle emissions are originally a制度 designed to incentivize nodes and ensure network security. It’s just that the official emphasis on “no subsequent team unlock” rarely makes it clear—at least not in a prominent way—that 36 years of continuous inflation is also a key point.

No short-term unlock downside doesn’t mean token supply has no pressure. This slow, “hidden knife” style long-term inflation is an invisible burden tucked deep within the table—it’s very easy for everyone to overlook it directly. Do you agree?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～

The square is done—scrambling at the mouth is finally back again
240000DUSK
Only the first 300 people get prizes
At today’s price, that’s 50U+ per person
Last time the ranking was 800+, so this time I’m back again to “pace-run.”

Today I looked at Dusk’s dual-virtual-machine architecture. I understood its smartest layout, but I also saw the most real compromises.

The official pitch is a natively developed Piecrust privacy ZK virtual machine, paired with the DuskEVM dual architecture. This way it can achieve native privacy performance, while also directly running Solidity contracts—making it suitable for compliant privacy finance in RWA.

At first glance, the design seems all-encompassing, and I thought so too. Piecrust is specifically optimized for zero-knowledge privacy contracts. To break the chilly situation of the native ZK ecosystem, the project adds DuskEVM on top—lowering the development barrier and attracting ordinary DeFi projects to migrate over.

But after looking closely for a while, I think forcibly merging the two virtual machines has some hidden risks worth watching.

First is privacy fragmentation. Full privacy interactions can only run within Piecrust. Although DuskEVM connects to a mature ecosystem, its privacy capabilities will be significantly downgraded. Developers can only choose one of the two—it's hard for the two systems to truly integrate their advantages.

Then there’s the parallel operation of two execution layers and two account models, which greatly increases architectural complexity. That, in turn, expands the potential bugs and attack surface. Piecrust is brand-new, with a short mainnet timeline. It hasn’t yet undergone large-scale real-ecosystem stress testing.

In my view, compatibility with EVM is more of a real-world compromise. A pure native ZK privacy chain has a difficult cold start. Projects borrow EVM to gain ecosystem heat, but they also end up carrying the extra burden of architectural redundancy.

I don’t deny Piecrust’s innovation highlights. I just think the public chain is most afraid of having to have it both ways—and dusk has hit that exact problem. Dual VMs may look all-powerful, but ecosystem fragmentation and uncertainty around safety could become a long-term technical burden it can’t easily escape.

Do you think EVM compatibility is its added bonus, or is it a development burden it will inevitably have to deal with later? Feel free to discuss in the comments.

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk ～

No matter what the market is like, you can’t miss a single Binance promotion—or you won’t even have pig’s trotter rice to eat.
$ETH
$BLUAI

I thought it was a big deal—turns out it can’t even be sold. The price is wrong; what a letdown.
$DOS

I only recognize blueberries—the red ones.
What fruit is this yellow one? Does anyone know?
Wait until the big pancake rises, then go buy some to eat.
$BTC

You can’t plan such an amazing event without a decade of stroke-thrombosis know-how.
You can’t miss out on spending the weekend scrolling $QQQB .
This project is a win-win for both the project party and the platform.
Only those who farm points are screaming and getting stuck.
$BTC

To do a giveaway task, I almost got liquidated in an instant!
I originally planned to open and close a position with 251U to complete the task, but I got sleepy and accidentally let it run to the full progress bar—opening 4 big BTC short orders at once. The position was worth over 200k U. In a split second, I was scared awake. I quickly closed it at market price. I ended up losing nearly 300U, and the fees alone ate up close to 100U. Now even doing 10,000 prize draws won’t get it back 😭
Brothers, when you place an order, be sure to check one more time!
$BTC

Now Alpha is also running out of food
Only get something else to make ends meet. I heard the profits from selling computers are doing well again. I’m planning to deliver the food and then go to the computer market to hand out flyers
$SKYAI

#bStocks探索计划 BAA, escape expert? Feels like I never actually escaped either—most of the time, when the dealer shut the doors, I got crippled 😂

#bStocks探索计划 spaceship is really awesome, but I choose a speedboat (option A)