六出纷飞

加入专属聊天室 Want red envelopes? Want peripheral items? Want strategies? The Six Brother chat room has it all, come join the chat room to receive benefits!
点击加入聊天室

#币安Alpha推出MERL交易竞赛

Thank you to all the bosses for your support. Yesterday, dozens of bosses activated the commission. We should save where we can and spend where we need to. The contract commission rate is 20%, and payments will be made to everyone every Sunday. 🎈Invitation code: LCFF666
#手续费返佣

Those who follow instructions won’t lose out!
Those who entered Bitcoin at 84k are now up more than two grand.
The hourly trend is still pointing up, so hold on tight.$BTC

The big pancake just ground back to 85000 again; today it really can grind

I didn’t chase when it hit 87300. Now that it’s back around 84900, I’m actually a little interested

If it gives me 84200-84400, I’ll grab a bit more. If it really plunges down, then I’ll top up around 83300. The worst thing with a position like this is watching it rise for a couple of candles and then getting itchy to chase in

First, watch 85800; then watch the previous high at 87200.

Over these past couple of days, I think I’ve figured out the market: when you chase, you get beaten up; when you wait, it won’t give you what you want 😂

$BTC
Are you guys currently long or short?#比特币冲击8.7万美元遇阻回落

The bull market is back—what should you buy?
For regular people, just do DCA into BTC. Don’t worry about so much. After all the games and strategies, in the end the gains might not even beat BTC! $BTC

In just two days, the big pancake rose from 7.6 to 8.1, up 5000 points

Brother Liu made it all the way up with a clear, straightforward long position—are there any brothers and sisters still on the train?
#比特币突破8万美元大关 $BTC

Yesterday I said near 76.7k whether it could hold steady—today BTC has already pushed up to 77.4k, which is basically the answer.

I’ve reduced half of both my BTC and ETH positions for now; the rest I’ll keep holding and running. After trimming, the profit in my hands feels much more comfortable—there’s no pressure anymore.

The profits I’ve earned go straight into my pocket; the rest is left to the market.#比特币突破77000美元 $BTC

Asked last night whether rate hikes would crash the market, and today the answer is already out.

The Fed has delivered the rate hike, and the bearish news has been priced in—so let’s take a small rebound. Next, the main focus is whether BTC can truly hold above the 76,7000 RMB area. Once it holds, we’ll look at the upside potential above.

As for this position tonight, do you think you should keep holding with conviction, or take some profit first? $BTC

No callbacks at all?
I was already thinking of shorting it
$ZEC

The cross-chain bridge we discussed earlier addresses the problem of “how to move assets from one chain to another.” This week, while checking the official website, I noticed that Dusk also lists a separate item called “cross-chain message infrastructure.” It’s not the same as an asset bridge, so I looked into what problem it actually solves.

An asset bridge focuses on “the transfer of money and assets.” Cross-chain message infrastructure addresses a more abstract layer: how applications on different chains can communicate with each other and trigger actions. For example, once a smart contract on one chain finishes executing a certain operation, it may need to notify a smart contract on another chain to perform a corresponding state update. This does not involve asset transfer at all—it's purely coordination at the information and instruction level.

As multi-chain ecosystems become more common, these kinds of needs are increasingly prevalent. In many ways, they’re more fundamental—and also more complicated—than simple asset transfers. Asset transfers at least have clear amounts and directions, whereas message passing can involve all kinds of scenarios, which makes standardization much harder.

I understand why Dusk wants to build out this area: if applications on Dusk EVM want to interoperate with other chains’ ecosystems (such as the Ethereum mainnet or other Layer 2 networks), not just by bridging assets back and forth, then they need a reliable cross-chain messaging protocol. This would allow smart contracts on different chains to “talk” to each other. In addition, the earlier-mentioned DuskTrade—if it truly aims to complete an institutional-grade investment workflow end-to-end—will very likely, in the future, need to integrate with traditional financial systems or asset pools on other chains as well. To some extent, this cross-chain message infrastructure is paving the way in advance for more complex multi-chain collaboration scenarios.

That said, the publicly available information I found so far about this infrastructure is still fairly limited. I couldn’t determine whether it uses a protocol built in-house or integrates a third-party cross-chain messaging standard (similar to general solutions like LayerZero or Wormhole). No detailed explanation was found. I plan to take another look once more specific technical documentation is released; for now, I can only say that I’ve noticed the existence of this direction.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I thought DuskEVM was a set of EVM-compatible layer handcrafted from scratch by the Dusk team—but after digging into the materials, I found the underlying implementation directly uses OP Stack, the open-source Rollup framework from Optimism. This discovery gave me a whole new understanding of DuskEVM’s positioning.

OP Stack is a modular framework in the Ethereum ecosystem that has been verified and widely adopted by multiple Layer2 chains (including Optimism itself, Base, etc.). It’s designed to quickly build an EVM-compatible execution layer. Dusk didn’t choose to reinvent the wheel; instead, it stands on this framework that has already undergone large-scale, real-world testing, building its own execution environment. The final state is then settled back to the underlying DuskDS.

I think this is a pretty pragmatic choice. Building a brand-new EVM-compatible virtual machine from zero would involve significant risks and time costs. In particular, the core team’s energy is better spent on areas like cryptography and compliance—where the real differentiation lies. By leveraging OP Stack, a mature framework that’s been widely proven across the Ethereum ecosystem, Dusk can save a lot of engineering effort that would otherwise go into reinventing the wheel. At the same time, it can also benefit from the continuously iterated Rollup tooling ecosystem in Ethereum. OP Stack itself keeps evolving; if Dusk can keep pace with updates from this upstream ecosystem, in theory it can continuously capture the technical benefits, without having to maintain an entire virtual machine technical stack on its own.

But this also means that DuskEVM’s security and performance, to some extent, are deeply tied to the robustness of the upstream OP Stack framework. If the upstream framework has vulnerabilities or undergoes architectural changes, Dusk will very likely need to adapt and patch accordingly. It’s not a fully independent and entirely self-controllable technical stack. This is an unavoidable dependency layer implied by “standing on the shoulders of giants.” The upside is that it saves a lot of effort; the downside is that autonomy is somewhat reduced.$DUSK

For technical trade-offs like “borrow a mature framework vs. reinvent one’s own,” there’s no absolute right or wrong. But understanding whether a chain’s underlying system is self-developed or based on a third-party architecture helps me judge more accurately whose historical record its technical risks should be compared to.
@Dusk #dusk

Last week I almost took the BEP20 version of DUSK in my hand and rushed straight into the staking page. Luckily, before submitting, I looked at the prompt more closely and realized it was totally different from what I thought. It scared the hell out of me, and I took the time to sort out the logic for this part.

Right now, DUSK comes in several forms in circulation. The native DUSK on the mainnet is the only “true” one. In addition, there are legacy ERC20 versions (on Ethereum) and BEP20 versions (on BNB Smart Chain). Fundamentally, those are tokenized certificates minted to make it easier for exchanges to list and for tokens to circulate back when the mainnet had not launched yet. They are not the same as native DUSK. You can’t directly stake them or participate in consensus. Staking-type protocols are designed to natively recognize only native DUSK.

The official path is a one-way migration: lock ERC20/BEP20 DUSK via the official contract, and the system issues native DUSK on the mainnet. The expected time for this process is roughly a dozen minutes (give or take). And when moving back from native DUSK to BEP20, you go through a different, separate bridge, which charges a fixed DUSK fee. The intent behind these two routes is very clear: native DUSK is explicitly defined as the “only authoritative source,” while BEP20 is more like a “shadow asset” that exists for liquidity and cross-ecosystem compatibility—not two equal forms.

While researching, I also came across a historical footnote—back in the early days, the Binance Beacon Chain was being phased out. At that time, the BEP2 version of DUSK was required to be migrated to BEP20 within a deadline. If you didn’t migrate by the cutoff date, it could directly lose usability. That served as a reminder for me: for multi-version tokens like this, what really underpins them is ongoing maintenance of the corresponding chains and contracts. Once a chain or some piece of infrastructure decides to leave, the wrapped assets sitting on it have to be moved in a rush—they’re not guaranteed to stay stable forever.

So this is a wake-up call for myself. Before heading into actions related to staking or the Dusk ecosystem, first confirm whether what you hold is actually native DUSK. If you don’t confirm it clearly, in the best case the operation fails; in the worst case, you’ll face the time-window pressure for asset migration—just like the official historical lesson warns.

@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I’ve always been curious about how Dusk penalizes node misbehavior or offline time. This week I specifically went through the documentation on the penalty mechanism, and found that this design is more nuanced than I imagined—it’s not a simple, heavy-handed one-size-fits-all confiscation of staking.

Dusk divides penalties into two tiers: soft and hard. Soft-slashing targets cases like “not doing anything malicious, but performing poorly,” for example when it’s your turn to propose a block but you don’t broadcast, or you’re offline for a long time and can’t keep up with the progress. This isn’t malicious behavior, but it does reduce network efficiency. Soft penalties don’t burn coins; instead, they move part of your stake into a reward pool that can be claimed later, lowering the weight of that portion of stake in subsequent selection draws. It also gives you a chance to issue a warning first—only on a repeat offense are you truly paused from participating for one epoch. In essence, it’s “reducing the probability that you’ll be selected,” not directly taking your money.

Hard-slashing is reserved for genuinely malicious behavior—actions that truly threaten network security, such as double-signing or forging invalid blocks. Only this kind of behavior will actually burn part of the stake, and it can result in you being paused for multiple consecutive epochs, with no warning chance.

I think this soft/hard tiered approach basically separates two problems of completely different natures: “technical failures” and “subjective malicious intent.” Ordinary node operators experiencing network fluctuations, server restarts, or other operational incidents that anyone might run into shouldn’t be treated with the same punitive strength as behavior intended to attack the network. Otherwise, people who are willing to run nodes would be discouraged, and the psychological cost of the participation barrier would be raised too high. But if the system is too lenient toward truly malicious behavior, network security can’t be guaranteed. To some extent, the soft and hard split is a middle line between the goals of “encouraging participation” and “punishing wrongdoing.”

But I did think of a question: with the design that soft penalties don’t burn coins, could it allow some people to “exploit a loophole”—intentionally maintaining an unstable but just-below-threshold operational standard? After all, the penalty is only the probability of being selected, not the principal, so the loss is controllable. This marginal game isn’t detailed in the documentation. I plan to look for evidence of such edge-case behavior in real network data when I get the chance.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I used to think that on-chain securities trading is just a simple process of "placing an order and then executing it." But when I came across Dusk's Smart Bulletin Board design, I realized that this scenario is actually much closer to real-world primary market trading habits than I had imagined.

XSC is Dusk's contract standard for securities-like assets. Its core goal is to keep the process of holding and trading these assets confidential, while still meeting audit requirements. Smart Bulletin Board is a specific matching mechanism within the XSC ecosystem. For both parties who want to buy and sell non-publicly traded securities assets, they first express their intent on this "bulletin board." Once a match is achieved and both sides agree, the transaction is then settled without trust using the XSC contracts. The entire workflow does not require an intermediary broker to facilitate, verify, or provide custody.

This design reminds me of private equity transfers I encountered before. Those deals often rely on personal networks and intermediary matchmaking, which makes the process slow and information opaque, and the intermediaries also take a fee. At its core, the Smart Bulletin Board moves the process of "finding the right counterparty" onto the blockchain: buyers and sellers meet directly at the protocol level. If they agree, they settle immediately—without the broker layer. In theory, that can significantly improve trading speed and reduce costs.

However, I noticed that this mechanism naturally comes with a prerequisite: participants must be screened through a whitelist approval process before they can enter trading. This is not a fully open public market. It is an admission mechanism specifically designed for regulated securities trading. That is completely different from the typical DeFi logic where anyone can join an open market.

I think this design choice points in the right direction. After all, securities trading is inherently regulated. But it also means that the accessibility of this system is not as universally available as one might expect. The users are still mostly within the circle of licensed institutions and qualified investors—this is not an open market where any random retail trader can directly participate.

Technically, it removes the middlemen, but the wall of entry requirements still remains. I think this combination fairly reflects the inherent tension between the two goals of "compliance" and "decentralizing intermediaries" themselves. It’s not simply a matter of choosing one over the other, or achieving both completely.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

TermMax, I calculated the threshold myself.

Based on TMX total supply of 1 billion and back-calculating from the current market cap range: if we allocate 1% of it to the Alpha airdrop pool, it’s roughly the same order of magnitude as “market cap × 1%.”

However, before this, TermMax has already run a Booster campaign—meaning it has already released part of the allocation early. So the actual proportion reserved for Alpha is very likely to be discounted; it probably won’t be exactly 1% in integer terms.

As a reference from airdrops of similar-sized projects in the last few rounds: the eligibility threshold for 50,000 fully-eligible allocations is mostly in the 200–230 score range. If TermMax’s distribution is estimated on a per-user basis, it will most likely land near this range as well, not particularly high.

But there’s a variable to consider: TermMax isn’t a brand-new project. It already has around $90 million in TVL and several hundred thousand registered wallets. It’s a project with some visibility in the lending/borrowing sector. In such cases, stakeholders typically have more influence than with pure new coins. So Binance’s allocation ratio might be pushed downward, and the threshold could end up being raised.

My own view is: don’t intentionally hoard points waiting for it. Just operate normally. If the threshold turns out to be unusually high, then just skip this round—fixed-rate lending/borrowing is still valuable long-term; it won’t hinge on this one airdrop.

#TermMax @TermMax

I looked up the background of the Dusk core team and found a somewhat counterintuitive point: the founder, Emanuele Francioni, comes from a professional background in robotics and automation engineering, not from a traditional track in cryptography. For the previous twenty years he worked on distributed systems and Byzantine fault tolerance; cryptography was a later skill he added to his toolkit.

But the person truly responsible for cryptography is the Chief Cryptographer, Dmitry Khovratovich. He’s not an unfamiliar name in the industry: both the Equihash and Argon2 hash algorithms were developed by him. The former has been used by many PoW chains to make ASIC mining more difficult, while the latter is widely recognized in the cryptography community as one of the standard cryptographic hash constructions. He also serves as a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. With a cryptographer who has an outstanding academic track record专职 handling the design of the underlying cryptography, while the founder focuses on system architecture and engineering implementation—this division of labor, in my view, is more reassuring than a “founder who understands both cryptography and engineering” all‑rounder persona. Getting the underlying mathematics correctness reviewed by specialists is more consistent with how large systems typically split responsibilities than having the founder do everything end to end.

That said, I’m not treating this as an immunity card—no matter how good the cryptographer is, mistakes can still happen. The earlier discussed dusk-plonk verification vulnerability is a good example: having a strong team background doesn’t mean there’s zero risk in the code. Audits and real-world testing are always necessary supplements; you can’t rely on the résumé alone.

In the end, team résumés are just reference points, not decisive evidence. What I care about more is what’s behind these names: the quality of the code they submitted over the past year and how quickly they respond to vulnerabilities. That’s more honest than any résumé.

@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

Still watching and waiting? Big BTC is about to surge to 80,000.
In just two days, it has jumped 10,000 points—are you still hesitating about whether to short?
$BTC

I wanted to move some idle Ethereum assets to try DuskEVM, so last night I followed the official documentation and went through the cross-chain bridge flow. I’ll note down my real experience—it's not as smooth as I imagined.

The process itself isn’t complicated: you initiate a locking transaction on Ethereum, wait for confirmation, then go to DuskEVM to claim the corresponding assets. The overall logic is basically the same as most cross-chain bridges, with no fundamentally different mechanism. What really made me anxious was the confirmation time—not that the bridge itself was stuck. Instead, Ethereum has to wait for enough block confirmations before it will allow the release, and DuskEVM also needs time to accumulate trust through its own finality mechanism. When the waiting time on both sides stacks up, it doesn’t feel like that kind of "click once and get到账 instantly" experience.

At first, I thought this waiting time was a flaw in the user experience, but later I realized it’s a necessary trade-off. Cross-chain bridges have been attacked and arbitraged many times in the past. Many bridges that went wrong did so precisely because they prioritized speed—by making their confirmation logic too aggressive, they gave attackers room to operate. Dusk’s choice is to run finality on both ends before allowing the transfer. It may be slower, but at least the design mindset puts security ahead of user experience, not the other way around.

That said, there’s still room to improve at the experience level. There aren’t particularly clear progress indicators during the process. After I initiated the transaction, there was a short period where I wasn’t sure whether I should keep waiting or whether some step was stuck and I needed to redo it. That kind of uncertainty isn’t very friendly for first-time users and can make them wonder if they did something wrong. Compared with some more mature bridges, the user feedback mechanism in this area still has room for improvement.

Also, there’s one question I couldn’t quite figure out: after the assets are bridged over, in what form do they exist on DuskEVM—are they natively mapped assets or wrapped tokens? This relationship determines what my redemption/withdrawal logic would be like if that bridge ever has issues in the future. The documentation doesn’t explain this part very plainly; I had to dig through several layers to piece the answer together.

For cross-chain bridges, my attitude has always been: if you can avoid using them, don’t. If you absolutely must use one, I’d rather tolerate some slowness and choose a design that prioritizes security. From this test, at least Dusk seems to have chosen the right direction. There’s still room to polish the details of the user experience.

@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I had always thought that when TermMax expires, it uses the common approach of "automatic closing positions and settling the price difference at market rate," until I re-read the documentation on how expiration is handled and realized it’s completely different. TermMax uses Physical Delivery—meaning that at the expiration moment, an FT holder can actually exchange it for 1 underlying debt token. On the borrower’s side, if they have not closed the position early or rolled it over in advance, the collateral and the debt will be settled directly according to the agreed terms after expiration, rather than the protocol stepping in to go find a price in the secondary market and cut the amount by some margin.

At first glance, this design may seem like a technical detail, but its real impact is quite significant. The risk with cash-settled agreements is that at the exact moment of expiration—if market liquidity suddenly dries up or the price flashes down—the settlement price could be far from what you expected. In that case, the protocol either has to recognize the loss itself or pass the loss on to the counterparty.

Physical delivery eliminates this uncertainty: expiration is expiration. The exchange relationship between the FT and the debt token is fixed in the contract—you don’t have to ask, "How much would the market be willing to pay at that time?" The lending parties lock in the interest rate and the outcome at the moment the position is opened. Between then and settlement, the delivery method itself doesn’t introduce any extra deviation.

That said, physical delivery also has its cost. It places more direct requirements on the borrower: by the expiration date, they must have sufficient assets ready to repay the debt token. You can’t just get away with the kind of gray area used by some cash-settled agreements, like "making up the difference." If the borrower doesn’t proactively roll over or add collateral before maturity, the position handling will be executed strictly according to the agreed terms—there will be no protocol helping you automatically find a middle-ground price for a soft landing.

This means that using TermMax for lending requires users to plan their expiration dates more clearly. It isn’t the kind of product where you can fully hand it off and rely on automatic handling at expiration.

I’m inclined to think this design is TermMax fully carrying through the idea of "fixed"—the interest rate is fixed, and the outcome at maturity is fixed as well. The trade-off is that users must take on more responsibility for proactive management themselves. This is the opposite direction from the "idiot-proof automation" many DeFi protocols aim for. Whether it’s worth it depends on whether you prefer certainty or convenience.

@TermMax #TermMax

Missed the move? That doesn’t exist.
The bigger the waves, the pricier the fish—once this trend shows up, you’ve got to follow it 🤫
A one-way market is the best opportunity to roll your position
Here are the levels for the brothers who don’t dare to get on yet 👇

Coin: ✅BTC
Direction: Long
Leverage: 100x
Entry limit order: 70500-70800 (wait for the first pullback; don’t chase the current price)
Additional buy limit order: 69400-69800 (the retracement area after the 4-hour breakout)
Take-profit limit orders: 72800 / 74200
Stop-loss limit order: 68750
#BTC突破$72000 $BTC