LearnToEarn
16.2k Posts
LearnToEarn
Square Verified+Signals hub • Your risk • your call •Market News •Projects •Content Creator • Awarded Creator🏆 | X/Twitter: @LearnToEarn_K
Creator Awards 2024
Traders League Badge Expert
#BinanceTurns7 task 2
Open Trade
XAUT Holder
High-Frequency Trader
2.6 Years
139 Following
104.0K+ Followers
72.0K+ Liked
4 Badges
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
If anyone commenting on my CreatorPad posts just to create a back-comment line, please don’t. Binance has issued a warning, and I don’t want to be part of anything that could put my account at risk. I hope everyone understands and takes care of their accounts as well.
see more details 👉🏼 here
@Binance Square Official @Binance Customer Support
see more details 👉🏼 here
@Binance Square Official @Binance Customer Support
I went back through the Dusk documentation last night, and the consensus design became much clearer once I followed the numbers instead of just the terminology.
A provisioner needs at least 1,000 DUSK. The current epoch is 2,160 blocks, and eligibility follows the maturity formula M = 2 × epoch − (height mod epoch). So staking is not instantly eligible; it becomes active at the start of a new epoch.
The SA process then moves through Proposal, Validation and Ratification. Validation needs a 2/3 supermajority for Valid, while Invalid or NoCandidate can reach quorum with 1/2 + 1. A round can run up to 50 iterations.
I also found the 64 committee credits interesting. Votes are weighted by credits, while deterministic extraction uses stake and reduces a provisioner’s weight by 1 DUSK per assigned credit. BLS signatures are then aggregated.
The security trade-offs are what I’m still thinking about. After 16 failed iterations, emergency mode begins, but concurrent open iterations can also increase fork risk. The protocol resolves those by choosing the lowest iteration.
Then there is the transaction layer: Moonlight is account-based and transparent, while Phoenix uses UTXOs, ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
My questions: does stake-weighted selection create meaningful concentration over time? And how robust is emergency mode under sustained network disruption?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
A provisioner needs at least 1,000 DUSK. The current epoch is 2,160 blocks, and eligibility follows the maturity formula M = 2 × epoch − (height mod epoch). So staking is not instantly eligible; it becomes active at the start of a new epoch.
The SA process then moves through Proposal, Validation and Ratification. Validation needs a 2/3 supermajority for Valid, while Invalid or NoCandidate can reach quorum with 1/2 + 1. A round can run up to 50 iterations.
I also found the 64 committee credits interesting. Votes are weighted by credits, while deterministic extraction uses stake and reduces a provisioner’s weight by 1 DUSK per assigned credit. BLS signatures are then aggregated.
The security trade-offs are what I’m still thinking about. After 16 failed iterations, emergency mode begins, but concurrent open iterations can also increase fork risk. The protocol resolves those by choosing the lowest iteration.
Then there is the transaction layer: Moonlight is account-based and transparent, while Phoenix uses UTXOs, ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
My questions: does stake-weighted selection create meaningful concentration over time? And how robust is emergency mode under sustained network disruption?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
·
--
🎙️ Hype DUSK CRASHING – BUY THE DIP OR SELL THE DUMP? 🚨
End
01 h 05 m 02 s
235
0
I went back through Dusk’s documentation last night, trying to understand Succinct Attestation (SA) beyond the PoS description.
What stood out is how much depends on deterministic sortition (DS). A provider needs at least 1,000 DUSK staked, but eligibility is delayed by M = 2 × epoch − (height mod epoch), with each epoch currently 2,160 blocks. DS selects block generators and committees using SHA3-based scores and a seed, making future selections harder to pre-calculate.
The consensus flow is proposal, validation, then ratification. Valid needs a 2/3 supermajority, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum needs 1/2 + 1. There can be up to 50 iterations per round.
Committee voting is weighted by credits, currently 64, with BLS signatures allowing votes to be aggregated. That raises a decentralization question: does stake-weighted selection remain diverse when large providers accumulate more influence?
Emergency mode after 16 failed iterations is a security tradeoff: it can keep consensus moving, but concurrent iterations may increase fork risk. An emergency block requires requests from providers holding a majority of total stake.
Rolling finality classifies blocks as accepted, attested, confirmed or final.
I’m wondering: how are these thresholds stress-tested against collusion, liveness failures, and committee concentration?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
What stood out is how much depends on deterministic sortition (DS). A provider needs at least 1,000 DUSK staked, but eligibility is delayed by M = 2 × epoch − (height mod epoch), with each epoch currently 2,160 blocks. DS selects block generators and committees using SHA3-based scores and a seed, making future selections harder to pre-calculate.
The consensus flow is proposal, validation, then ratification. Valid needs a 2/3 supermajority, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum needs 1/2 + 1. There can be up to 50 iterations per round.
Committee voting is weighted by credits, currently 64, with BLS signatures allowing votes to be aggregated. That raises a decentralization question: does stake-weighted selection remain diverse when large providers accumulate more influence?
Emergency mode after 16 failed iterations is a security tradeoff: it can keep consensus moving, but concurrent iterations may increase fork risk. An emergency block requires requests from providers holding a majority of total stake.
Rolling finality classifies blocks as accepted, attested, confirmed or final.
I’m wondering: how are these thresholds stress-tested against collusion, liveness failures, and committee concentration?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
🚨 𝐒𝐂 +𝟓𝟎% 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐆𝐄! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$SC is showing strong momentum after a +50% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.000935.
Entry: $0.000524 – $0.000792
TP1: $0.000935
TP2: $0.001000
SL: $0.000524
R:R: 1:2
🔥 Break and hold above $0.000935 could open the door for another strong upside move.
$SC
$SC is showing strong momentum after a +50% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.000935.
Entry: $0.000524 – $0.000792
TP1: $0.000935
TP2: $0.001000
SL: $0.000524
R:R: 1:2
🔥 Break and hold above $0.000935 could open the door for another strong upside move.
$SC
·
--
🎙️ BUY DUSK NOW! Will DUSK Hit 0.090 Today? LIVE TRADING!
End
01 h 20 m 16 s
537
0
$DUSK RECOVERING! BREAKOUT WATCH 🚀
Entry: $0.0660 – $0.0767
TP: $0.0885 / $0.0900
SL: $0.0660
Break $0.0885 = next leg up.$DUSK
Entry: $0.0660 – $0.0767
TP: $0.0885 / $0.0900
SL: $0.0660
Break $0.0885 = next leg up.$DUSK
🔥 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 +𝟕𝟕% 𝐌𝐄𝐆𝐀 𝐏𝐔𝐌𝐏! 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$TRUMP is showing explosive momentum after a +77% surge. The key level now is $3.680 — a clean break and hold could signal further upside.
Entry: $1.699 – $3.031
TP1: $3.680
TP2: $4.000
SL: $1.699
🔥 Break and hold above $3.680 could open the door for the next upside move. $TRUMP
$TRUMP is showing explosive momentum after a +77% surge. The key level now is $3.680 — a clean break and hold could signal further upside.
Entry: $1.699 – $3.031
TP1: $3.680
TP2: $4.000
SL: $1.699
🔥 Break and hold above $3.680 could open the door for the next upside move. $TRUMP
I spent last night reading through the Dusk whitepaper again to better understand its underlying consensus and transaction architecture. Initially, I assumed it was just a standard privacy chain, but the dual-engine setup is more complex than I expected.
They split execution into Moonlight a transparent account-based model and Phoenix, a ZK UTXO model using Merkle tree notes and nullifiers to prevent double-spending. What really caught my attention was Section 3.9 on incentives. Block rewards are distributed with 80% to the block generator (divided into a 70% fixed portion and 10% variable based on voter credits), 10% to the voting committee, and 10% directly to Dusk. For penalties, minor faults lead to soft slashing and suspension, while major faults like double voting incur hard slashing that burns stake.
This raised a few decentralization and security questions for me. How does the continuous 10% cut to Dusk impact long-term treasury centralization? Furthermore, in real-world latency conditions, does the credit mechanism effectively prevent higher-iteration generators from intentionally letting earlier iterations fail to capture the generator reward?
I couldn't find a clear answer on how the Phoenix nullifier set scales against state bloat over time either. Would love to hear technical perspectives on this.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
They split execution into Moonlight a transparent account-based model and Phoenix, a ZK UTXO model using Merkle tree notes and nullifiers to prevent double-spending. What really caught my attention was Section 3.9 on incentives. Block rewards are distributed with 80% to the block generator (divided into a 70% fixed portion and 10% variable based on voter credits), 10% to the voting committee, and 10% directly to Dusk. For penalties, minor faults lead to soft slashing and suspension, while major faults like double voting incur hard slashing that burns stake.
This raised a few decentralization and security questions for me. How does the continuous 10% cut to Dusk impact long-term treasury centralization? Furthermore, in real-world latency conditions, does the credit mechanism effectively prevent higher-iteration generators from intentionally letting earlier iterations fail to capture the generator reward?
I couldn't find a clear answer on how the Phoenix nullifier set scales against state bloat over time either. Would love to hear technical perspectives on this.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I went back through the TermMax documentation last night, focusing on the airdrop checker and token distribution sections. What started as a quick read turned into a longer attempt to map the actual mechanics.
Below the vesting threshold the full allocation is claimable immediately with no lockup, or it can be staked for a bonus of +80 percent over three months or +180 percent over six months. Above the threshold the options narrow: claim 30 percent now and permanently forfeit the remaining 70 percent, or claim only 15 percent now and vest the other 85 percent over three or six months. That 15 percent can still be claimed or staked. Unlocks occur every three months; a three-month plan releases once, while a six-month plan releases at month three and month six. If both vesting and staking are selected the bonuses follow their own schedules but appear together in the same unlock window.
The confirmation deadline is 23 August 23:59 UTC and the choice is irreversible. Missing it defaults to the longest lockup of six-month vesting plus six-month stake. Claiming itself opens on 25 August and confirmed selections carry over to the TMX Management page at TGE. Allocations are fixed to the snapshot of verified activity and holdings. Tokens from the earlier Binance Wallet campaign are excluded from the checker and will be sent separately at TGE with no vesting.
I could not find a clear explanation of how the threshold itself was calculated or whether it can later be adjusted through governance. The irreversible selection also raises a practical security question if a wallet is compromised or an interface error occurs. Does staking the bonus tokens confer any governance weight, or is it purely a yield mechanism? Has anyone else located the precise parameter sources or recovery paths in the contracts?
#termmax @TermMax
Below the vesting threshold the full allocation is claimable immediately with no lockup, or it can be staked for a bonus of +80 percent over three months or +180 percent over six months. Above the threshold the options narrow: claim 30 percent now and permanently forfeit the remaining 70 percent, or claim only 15 percent now and vest the other 85 percent over three or six months. That 15 percent can still be claimed or staked. Unlocks occur every three months; a three-month plan releases once, while a six-month plan releases at month three and month six. If both vesting and staking are selected the bonuses follow their own schedules but appear together in the same unlock window.
The confirmation deadline is 23 August 23:59 UTC and the choice is irreversible. Missing it defaults to the longest lockup of six-month vesting plus six-month stake. Claiming itself opens on 25 August and confirmed selections carry over to the TMX Management page at TGE. Allocations are fixed to the snapshot of verified activity and holdings. Tokens from the earlier Binance Wallet campaign are excluded from the checker and will be sent separately at TGE with no vesting.
I could not find a clear explanation of how the threshold itself was calculated or whether it can later be adjusted through governance. The irreversible selection also raises a practical security question if a wallet is compromised or an interface error occurs. Does staking the bonus tokens confer any governance weight, or is it purely a yield mechanism? Has anyone else located the precise parameter sources or recovery paths in the contracts?
#termmax @TermMax
·
--
🎙️ DUSKUSDT LIVE AUDIO 1 HOUR PROFIT CHALLENGE 🔥
End
01 h 05 m 03 s
268
0
🚨 𝐁𝐎𝐌𝐄 +𝟒𝟗% 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐆𝐄! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$BOME is showing strong momentum after a +49% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.001329.
Entry: $0.000771 – $0.001155
TP1: $0.001329
TP2: $0.001400
SL: $0.000771
🔥 Break and hold above $0.001329 could open the door for another strong upside move.
$BOME
$BOME is showing strong momentum after a +49% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.001329.
Entry: $0.000771 – $0.001155
TP1: $0.001329
TP2: $0.001400
SL: $0.000771
🔥 Break and hold above $0.001329 could open the door for another strong upside move.
$BOME
LearnToEarn
·
--
I’ve been thinking about how much of a lending protocol’s risk really comes down to a few numbers.
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
🚀 𝐁𝐓𝐂 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌𝐄𝐃! 𝐁𝐔𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐌𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐌 🔥
$BTC is holding above the breakout zone, with buyers now targeting the key resistance at $72,490.
Entry: $64,461 – $71,926
TP1: $72,490
TP2: $73,000
SL: $64,461
🔥 Break and hold above $72,490 could open the door for the next leg higher.$BTC
$BTC is holding above the breakout zone, with buyers now targeting the key resistance at $72,490.
Entry: $64,461 – $71,926
TP1: $72,490
TP2: $73,000
SL: $64,461
🔥 Break and hold above $72,490 could open the door for the next leg higher.$BTC
LearnToEarn
·
--
I went back through the Dusk documentation last night, specifically the sections on the DS algorithm and how provisioners get selected for consensus.
I started by trying to map the stake eligibility rules. A provisioner’s stake S is treated as eligible only if the amount is at least the minimum (set at 1000 DUSK) and its age/length sits between 0 and M. The DS process then ranks those eligible stakes by a score that mixes the stake’s size with a deterministic function of the previous block hash and the provisioner’s public key. The highest-scoring provisioner becomes the one who can propose the next block.
Reading further, the flow became clearer: the selected provisioner broadcasts a candidate block, a committee of other provisioners runs validation, and if a simple majority (½ + 1) of ValidBk messages appears, the block moves to ratification. Ratification itself needs a stronger threshold ⅔ + 1 before the block is considered finalized and the new set of provisioners is locked in. Attestation and voting committees are formed the same deterministic way, just with different seeds.
What still feels unresolved for me is how sensitive the whole chain is to the exact value of M and to the 1000 DUSK floor. If those parameters shift, does the effective decentralization of the provisioner set change in ways that are hard to see from the outside? And once a block is attested, how much practical recourse exists if a later audit shows the DS ranking was gamed?
Curious how others who’ve dug into the same pages read the security margins around those majority thresholds.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I started by trying to map the stake eligibility rules. A provisioner’s stake S is treated as eligible only if the amount is at least the minimum (set at 1000 DUSK) and its age/length sits between 0 and M. The DS process then ranks those eligible stakes by a score that mixes the stake’s size with a deterministic function of the previous block hash and the provisioner’s public key. The highest-scoring provisioner becomes the one who can propose the next block.
Reading further, the flow became clearer: the selected provisioner broadcasts a candidate block, a committee of other provisioners runs validation, and if a simple majority (½ + 1) of ValidBk messages appears, the block moves to ratification. Ratification itself needs a stronger threshold ⅔ + 1 before the block is considered finalized and the new set of provisioners is locked in. Attestation and voting committees are formed the same deterministic way, just with different seeds.
What still feels unresolved for me is how sensitive the whole chain is to the exact value of M and to the 1000 DUSK floor. If those parameters shift, does the effective decentralization of the provisioner set change in ways that are hard to see from the outside? And once a block is attested, how much practical recourse exists if a later audit shows the DS ranking was gamed?
Curious how others who’ve dug into the same pages read the security margins around those majority thresholds.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Partly True
I went back through the Dusk documentation last night, specifically the sections on the DS algorithm and how provisioners get selected for consensus.
I started by trying to map the stake eligibility rules. A provisioner’s stake S is treated as eligible only if the amount is at least the minimum (set at 1000 DUSK) and its age/length sits between 0 and M. The DS process then ranks those eligible stakes by a score that mixes the stake’s size with a deterministic function of the previous block hash and the provisioner’s public key. The highest-scoring provisioner becomes the one who can propose the next block.
Reading further, the flow became clearer: the selected provisioner broadcasts a candidate block, a committee of other provisioners runs validation, and if a simple majority (½ + 1) of ValidBk messages appears, the block moves to ratification. Ratification itself needs a stronger threshold ⅔ + 1 before the block is considered finalized and the new set of provisioners is locked in. Attestation and voting committees are formed the same deterministic way, just with different seeds.
What still feels unresolved for me is how sensitive the whole chain is to the exact value of M and to the 1000 DUSK floor. If those parameters shift, does the effective decentralization of the provisioner set change in ways that are hard to see from the outside? And once a block is attested, how much practical recourse exists if a later audit shows the DS ranking was gamed?
Curious how others who’ve dug into the same pages read the security margins around those majority thresholds.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
I started by trying to map the stake eligibility rules. A provisioner’s stake S is treated as eligible only if the amount is at least the minimum (set at 1000 DUSK) and its age/length sits between 0 and M. The DS process then ranks those eligible stakes by a score that mixes the stake’s size with a deterministic function of the previous block hash and the provisioner’s public key. The highest-scoring provisioner becomes the one who can propose the next block.
Reading further, the flow became clearer: the selected provisioner broadcasts a candidate block, a committee of other provisioners runs validation, and if a simple majority (½ + 1) of ValidBk messages appears, the block moves to ratification. Ratification itself needs a stronger threshold ⅔ + 1 before the block is considered finalized and the new set of provisioners is locked in. Attestation and voting committees are formed the same deterministic way, just with different seeds.
What still feels unresolved for me is how sensitive the whole chain is to the exact value of M and to the 1000 DUSK floor. If those parameters shift, does the effective decentralization of the provisioner set change in ways that are hard to see from the outside? And once a block is attested, how much practical recourse exists if a later audit shows the DS ranking was gamed?
Curious how others who’ve dug into the same pages read the security margins around those majority thresholds.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
🚀 𝐁𝐓𝐂 𝐌𝐄𝐆𝐀 𝐏𝐔𝐌𝐏! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🔥
$BTC is showing strong momentum after the latest push higher. The key level to watch now is $71,570 for continuation.
Entry: $64,279 – $71,300
TP1: $71,570
TP2: $72,000
SL: $64,279
🔥 Break and hold above $71,570 could open the door for the next upside move.
$BTC
$BTC is showing strong momentum after the latest push higher. The key level to watch now is $71,570 for continuation.
Entry: $64,279 – $71,300
TP1: $71,570
TP2: $72,000
SL: $64,279
🔥 Break and hold above $71,570 could open the door for the next upside move.
$BTC
LearnToEarn
·
--
I’ve been thinking about how much of a lending protocol’s risk really comes down to a few numbers.
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
I’ve been thinking about how much of a lending protocol’s risk really comes down to a few numbers.
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
With @TermMax , MLTV and LLTV are the first things I’d look at.
MLTV sets how much you can borrow initially, while LLTV is where liquidation can actually begin. That gap matters because it gives a position some room before things become critical.
But risk doesn’t stop at LTV.
TermMax also uses fixed terms, partial liquidations, a 10% liquidation penalty, vault capacity limits, market whitelists, curators, and timelocks.
What I find more interesting is the physical delivery fallback. If a position can’t be fully liquidated, lenders may receive a pro-rata share of the collateral itself. That reduces the chance of simply ending with nothing, but it also means lenders can inherit an asset they may not actually want to hold.
So there’s a clear trade-off.
More aggressive parameters can improve capital efficiency, but they also leave less room for bad debt. More conservative settings protect lenders better, but can reduce utilization and growth.
That balance is probably where the real risk management happens.
I’m still curious how these parameters evolve as @TermMax markets mature.
DYOR. Not financial advice.#termmax @TermMax
🚀 𝐁𝐓𝐂 𝐁𝐔𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐇! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🔥
$BTC is showing strong bullish momentum, with buyers pushing toward the key $70,000 resistance.
Entry: $64,166 – $69,123
TP1: $70,000
TP2: $71,000
SL: $64,166
🔥 Break and hold above $70,000 could open the door for the next leg higher.$BTC
$BTC is showing strong bullish momentum, with buyers pushing toward the key $70,000 resistance.
Entry: $64,166 – $69,123
TP1: $70,000
TP2: $71,000
SL: $64,166
🔥 Break and hold above $70,000 could open the door for the next leg higher.$BTC
LearnToEarn
·
--
I went back through the Dusk whitepaper last night, especially the sections on incentives, transactions, and Moonlight, and I found the design more nuanced than I first expected.
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
🚨 𝐑𝐄 +𝟑𝟓% 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐆𝐄! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$RE is showing strong momentum after a +35% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.5485.
Entry: $0.3878 – $0.5406
TP1: $0.5485
TP2: $0.5600
SL: $0.3878
🔥 Break and hold above $0.5485 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$RE
$RE is showing strong momentum after a +35% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.5485.
Entry: $0.3878 – $0.5406
TP1: $0.5485
TP2: $0.5600
SL: $0.3878
🔥 Break and hold above $0.5485 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$RE
LearnToEarn
·
--
I went back through the Dusk whitepaper last night, especially the sections on incentives, transactions, and Moonlight, and I found the design more nuanced than I first expected.
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐄 +𝟑𝟕% 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐆𝐄! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$TREE is showing strong momentum after a +37% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.0480.
Entry: $0.0327 – $0.0452
TP1: $0.0480
TP2: $0.0500
SL: $0.0327
🔥 Break and hold above $0.0480 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$TREE
$TREE is showing strong momentum after a +37% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $0.0480.
Entry: $0.0327 – $0.0452
TP1: $0.0480
TP2: $0.0500
SL: $0.0327
🔥 Break and hold above $0.0480 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$TREE
LearnToEarn
·
--
I went back through the Dusk whitepaper last night, especially the sections on incentives, transactions, and Moonlight, and I found the design more nuanced than I first expected.
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
🚨 𝐌𝐕𝐋𝐋𝐁 +𝟏𝟗% 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐆𝐄! 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 🚀
$MVLLB is showing strong momentum after a +19% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $34.12.
Entry: $24.35 – $32.01
TP1: $34.12
TP2: $35.00
SL: $24.35
🔥 Break and hold above $34.12 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$MVLLB
$MVLLB is showing strong momentum after a +19% surge, with buyers now approaching the key resistance at $34.12.
Entry: $24.35 – $32.01
TP1: $34.12
TP2: $35.00
SL: $24.35
🔥 Break and hold above $34.12 could open the door for the next leg higher.
$MVLLB
LearnToEarn
·
--
I went back through the Dusk whitepaper last night, especially the sections on incentives, transactions, and Moonlight, and I found the design more nuanced than I first expected.
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
The consensus side uses 64 committee credits, with voting power weighted by credits. Quorum needs 2/3 for Valid, while Invalid, NoCandidate or NoQuorum can pass with 1/2 + 1. Rolling finality also caught my attention: if a block has two previous non-attested iterations, it needs 2×2 = 4 consecutive attested or confirmed blocks to become confirmed.
The incentive model is interesting too. Block rewards are split 80% to the generator, 10% to the voting committee, and 10% to Dusk. The generator’s 80% itself includes a fixed 70% plus a variable 10% tied to included votes. I can see why this exists: higher-iteration generators could otherwise benefit from earlier iterations failing.
On transactions, Moonlight is account-based and transparent, with public balances and a nonce for replay protection. Phoenix takes the UTXO route and uses ZK proofs and nullifiers for privacy.
What I’m still wondering is whether the 80/10/10 structure creates enough incentive for broad participation, and how decentralization behaves when stake concentration determines committee credits.
How does the community view these trade-offs?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Log in to explore more content