Daft Punk–不是反指版
3.4k Posts
Daft Punk–不是反指版
Square Verified+马无夜草不肥，人无横财不富。
Open Trade
APR Holder
Frequent Trader
1.6 Years
313 Following
48.4K+ Followers
43.3K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Live
PINNED
Hilarious—those old brothers who are still stubbornly holding long positions at $SPCX . I genuinely can’t believe it. You rushed in when the IPO was $135, it went up to $225 but you wouldn’t sell, and now it’s down to $110—you’re still there talking about “long-termism” and “Mars faith.” Can faith fill your stomach? Can a tweet from Musk make your account recover?
Look at this chart. It’s only been a little over a month since listing, and it’s been cut in half straight from $225. Short positions have piled up to 32% of the float. And there’s $25.0 billion worth of “ammo” blasting right in your face, yet you’re still there “buying the dip” and “adding to your position.” When the lockup expiration wave hits on August 6, 900 million shares will directly dump onto the market—that’s $116.0 billion of sell pressure. How do you expect to catch all that? The float is less than 5%—if any major shareholder wants to cash out, the stock price basically falls freely.
Even if Musk comes, it won’t help. I’ll tell you: even if Musk really shows up, it still won’t help. This stock is valued at over 100x sales and has been losing money consistently. ROE is -33%. The valuation is propped up entirely by the “space + AI” story. Once the story ends, where’s the money?
Starlink does make money, but can it support this big family—rockets, AI, and Twitter? What came out of that $60 billion Cursor acquisition deal? What’s the integration actually produced?
I’ll be blunt: SPCX will hit double digits. Under $100 is basically a lock. My short position is already maxed out, and I’ve got plenty of leverage. This lockup expiration wave is when I get rich. You longs keep chanting your mantras—I’ll keep counting my money. Later, when SPCX drops to $80 or $90, don’t blame me—I warned you. This isn’t Tesla—there’s no retail crowd saving the day. Only institutions dumping.
Musk? If he comes, he’ll end up crying too.
Look at this chart. It’s only been a little over a month since listing, and it’s been cut in half straight from $225. Short positions have piled up to 32% of the float. And there’s $25.0 billion worth of “ammo” blasting right in your face, yet you’re still there “buying the dip” and “adding to your position.” When the lockup expiration wave hits on August 6, 900 million shares will directly dump onto the market—that’s $116.0 billion of sell pressure. How do you expect to catch all that? The float is less than 5%—if any major shareholder wants to cash out, the stock price basically falls freely.
Even if Musk comes, it won’t help. I’ll tell you: even if Musk really shows up, it still won’t help. This stock is valued at over 100x sales and has been losing money consistently. ROE is -33%. The valuation is propped up entirely by the “space + AI” story. Once the story ends, where’s the money?
Starlink does make money, but can it support this big family—rockets, AI, and Twitter? What came out of that $60 billion Cursor acquisition deal? What’s the integration actually produced?
I’ll be blunt: SPCX will hit double digits. Under $100 is basically a lock. My short position is already maxed out, and I’ve got plenty of leverage. This lockup expiration wave is when I get rich. You longs keep chanting your mantras—I’ll keep counting my money. Later, when SPCX drops to $80 or $90, don’t blame me—I warned you. This isn’t Tesla—there’s no retail crowd saving the day. Only institutions dumping.
Musk? If he comes, he’ll end up crying too.
PINNED
LOL, even the neighbor’s withdrawal feature costs money to purchase. It’s trash.
$牛来 Zhuangdang rubbish shoved into my pocket—my coins are enough to buy a big bottle of iced tea.
Sometimes I really wish the phone was turned the other way around. Maybe everyone is still bitter about missing out on $TRUMP , and that's why it was so easy to trick them 😭
Three women make a show, and the old saying proves true—now every ex-girlfriend from every era has entered the game. Sun Ge can start the awards ceremony.$DOGE
Solved the case—this round was Sun Ge’s covert push for Claude, pretty straightforward and no-frills like any business war.$BTC
The value of the saying that a hero is hard-pressed to resist a beauty is still rising; this round is famously known as the “Sun Jing Encounter”$DOGE
Is that word “covering up an obvious fact,” or something like that? If this keeps going, crude oil is still going to drop further.$USOon
$BABY Creator activity description and reward distribution are a little off. After they found out in the Plaza, they just waved a hand and reissued everything. The overall efficiency is top-notch 😍 You can check the rewards in the Rewards Center for ranks 16–112. Thanks again to the Plaza @币安广场
If you don’t copy, I won’t copy—industry progress will all be doomed.
If you copy, I copy too—industry development will keep rising.
$DEBIT
If you copy, I copy too—industry development will keep rising.
$DEBIT
$BTR back in April when I bought in, it just plummeted—who could hold on? It was only 0.03 back then 🥺
Tell a joke: the $BTR issued last year by Guangchang Zhui Lu, sold it for 185u at the time. Pinched it until now, and it can be sold for 189u—huge profit of 4u.
冷眼看Dusk的合规隐私路，走对了一半
I ran through Dusk’s testnet and, as an aside, skimmed through its recent iteration logs. To be honest, the narrative of compliant privacy has not been new anymore in 2026, but @Dusk has put the focus on “auditable confidential computation.” The direction is more pragmatic than many privacy projects that just shout slogans. Its Citadel protocol design is fairly restrained—it doesn’t chase extremes like “complete anonymity” that leaves regulators unable to find a way in. Instead, it makes selective disclosures at the transaction layer. This approach reminds me of Oasis, but Dusk’s entry point is more aligned with traditional financial assets—especially bond and securitization scenarios. The issue is precisely here: financial-grade compliance is not just a technical job. The legal identity of node operators and the boundaries for data retention are far more complicated once you put them into practice on-chain than they sound in whitepapers.
Comparing it to Secret Network is also interesting. Secret focuses on general-purpose privacy computation, and the ecosystem has some overlap with DeFi and NFTs—flexible but scattered. Dusk, on the other hand, feels more like a specialist: it locks in on issuing and settling regulated assets. In the short term, Dusk’s narrative is narrower, but once real institutions are willing to use $DUSK for settlement test runs, that narrowness can turn into a moat. When I ran a Citadel validation node locally, I found that its ZK proof generation speed is slower than expected, especially when handling batches of multi-asset instructions—the latency rises quite noticeably. Compared with more aggressive Rollup approaches like Aztec, Dusk’s on-chain overhead control is only so-so. Still, it moves some computation to off-chain execution environments, effectively trading architecture for throughput. The catch is that this “semi-off-chain” model also increases the trust assumptions for auditing nodes.
There’s a rather strange phenomenon in the industry right now: everyone is shouting RWA and compliant DeFi, but very few are actually willing to tie token economic models directly to regulatory costs. Dusk’s token $DUSK , beyond staking and gas consumption, also takes on the role of posting collateral for compliant nodes. This design makes me feel that it at least considered the question of “who will stand behind it if something goes wrong.” Unfortunately, the ecosystem tools are still too thin—there’s almost zero guidance for ordinary users on the wallet side, and the developer documentation reads like an internal memo. If only institutions can use it, while retail users cannot get in, liquidity will remain a persistent risk. #dusk
I ran through Dusk’s testnet and, as an aside, skimmed through its recent iteration logs. To be honest, the narrative of compliant privacy has not been new anymore in 2026, but @Dusk has put the focus on “auditable confidential computation.” The direction is more pragmatic than many privacy projects that just shout slogans. Its Citadel protocol design is fairly restrained—it doesn’t chase extremes like “complete anonymity” that leaves regulators unable to find a way in. Instead, it makes selective disclosures at the transaction layer. This approach reminds me of Oasis, but Dusk’s entry point is more aligned with traditional financial assets—especially bond and securitization scenarios. The issue is precisely here: financial-grade compliance is not just a technical job. The legal identity of node operators and the boundaries for data retention are far more complicated once you put them into practice on-chain than they sound in whitepapers.
Comparing it to Secret Network is also interesting. Secret focuses on general-purpose privacy computation, and the ecosystem has some overlap with DeFi and NFTs—flexible but scattered. Dusk, on the other hand, feels more like a specialist: it locks in on issuing and settling regulated assets. In the short term, Dusk’s narrative is narrower, but once real institutions are willing to use $DUSK for settlement test runs, that narrowness can turn into a moat. When I ran a Citadel validation node locally, I found that its ZK proof generation speed is slower than expected, especially when handling batches of multi-asset instructions—the latency rises quite noticeably. Compared with more aggressive Rollup approaches like Aztec, Dusk’s on-chain overhead control is only so-so. Still, it moves some computation to off-chain execution environments, effectively trading architecture for throughput. The catch is that this “semi-off-chain” model also increases the trust assumptions for auditing nodes.
There’s a rather strange phenomenon in the industry right now: everyone is shouting RWA and compliant DeFi, but very few are actually willing to tie token economic models directly to regulatory costs. Dusk’s token $DUSK , beyond staking and gas consumption, also takes on the role of posting collateral for compliant nodes. This design makes me feel that it at least considered the question of “who will stand behind it if something goes wrong.” Unfortunately, the ecosystem tools are still too thin—there’s almost zero guidance for ordinary users on the wallet side, and the developer documentation reads like an internal memo. If only institutions can use it, while retail users cannot get in, liquidity will remain a persistent risk. #dusk
After finishing the Dusk testnet node run, my fantasy of a compliant privacy chain was cut in half
Dusk tries to cram the PLONK and the Phoenix transaction model into a single chain. The idea isn't just name-dropping. But when I actually set up and deployed nodes, the documentation's hardware requirements were vague. During data syncing, the CPU usage shot straight to the max, and memory consumption was higher than I expected by a noticeable margin. This may not be a design flaw—more like optimization hasn't kept pace yet—but it's not very friendly to people who seriously want to run nodes.
Comparing with Secret Network makes it obvious. It places privacy computation at the contract layer, so the developer barrier is low, but programmability is tightly constrained by TEE. Dusk aims to build privacy directly from the underlying state machine. In theory, it’s more thorough—but the cost is a developer experience that’s hard and unpleasant. The debugging tools for the Rusk VM are basically guesswork; error messages feel like a black box, and after searching for hours you still can’t tell whether it's a state transition issue or a gas estimation deviation. This isn’t just something I encountered—feedback from several independent developers in the community is pretty much the same.
On the compliance narrative, the security tokenization and confidential KYC/AML represented by @Dusk are actually closer to the needs of real financial institutions than Oasis. Oasis leans more toward the data economy. Dusk goes straight for regulated assets: the positioning is clear, but the delivery pace is unusually slow. The Citadel consensus produces blocks stably, but there’s a delay between browser and wallet data synchronization, which isn’t very friendly for market making and trading. For a chain that markets itself for financial scenarios, it’s hard not to be skeptical when the frontend toolchain is so rough.
I'm not trying to write off $DUSK —just that for projects like this, the biggest risk is never the technology itself. It’s always ecosystem cold-start. If even node deployment and debugging can discourage independent developers, it will be hard later to have enough applications to fill the privacy transaction pool. Dusk, don’t spend all your effort on compliance messaging. The toolchain needs to catch up first; otherwise, even the most beautiful narrative can’t support real usage volume.
#dusk
Dusk tries to cram the PLONK and the Phoenix transaction model into a single chain. The idea isn't just name-dropping. But when I actually set up and deployed nodes, the documentation's hardware requirements were vague. During data syncing, the CPU usage shot straight to the max, and memory consumption was higher than I expected by a noticeable margin. This may not be a design flaw—more like optimization hasn't kept pace yet—but it's not very friendly to people who seriously want to run nodes.
Comparing with Secret Network makes it obvious. It places privacy computation at the contract layer, so the developer barrier is low, but programmability is tightly constrained by TEE. Dusk aims to build privacy directly from the underlying state machine. In theory, it’s more thorough—but the cost is a developer experience that’s hard and unpleasant. The debugging tools for the Rusk VM are basically guesswork; error messages feel like a black box, and after searching for hours you still can’t tell whether it's a state transition issue or a gas estimation deviation. This isn’t just something I encountered—feedback from several independent developers in the community is pretty much the same.
On the compliance narrative, the security tokenization and confidential KYC/AML represented by @Dusk are actually closer to the needs of real financial institutions than Oasis. Oasis leans more toward the data economy. Dusk goes straight for regulated assets: the positioning is clear, but the delivery pace is unusually slow. The Citadel consensus produces blocks stably, but there’s a delay between browser and wallet data synchronization, which isn’t very friendly for market making and trading. For a chain that markets itself for financial scenarios, it’s hard not to be skeptical when the frontend toolchain is so rough.
I'm not trying to write off $DUSK —just that for projects like this, the biggest risk is never the technology itself. It’s always ecosystem cold-start. If even node deployment and debugging can discourage independent developers, it will be hard later to have enough applications to fill the privacy transaction pool. Dusk, don’t spend all your effort on compliance messaging. The toolchain needs to catch up first; otherwise, even the most beautiful narrative can’t support real usage volume.
#dusk
Log in to explore more content