Partnership news can make two separate milestones sound like one finished result. With $DUSK and 21X, the useful thing is to keep the steps separate.
@Dusk_Foundation ’s 2025 announcement said it was being onboarded as a 21X trade participant. In the same announcement, deeper work was described separately: 21X planned to integrate DuskEVM as a supported blockchain. Those are not the same milestone.
That distinction still matters today because Dusk’s current site labels DuskEVM as Testnet. So a reader should not turn “partner” or “trade participant” into “the DuskEVM integration is already live” without a current confirmation of that specific step.
For someone following regulated-market adoption, this is a simple checklist: who is participating, which chain is supported, and what is actually live now?
When you see a partnership update, which proof would you want before calling the technical integration complete: participant status, a supported-chain announcement, or a live production route? @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
@Dusk_Foundation ’s 2025 announcement said it was being onboarded as a 21X trade participant. In the same announcement, deeper work was described separately: 21X planned to integrate DuskEVM as a supported blockchain. Those are not the same milestone.
That distinction still matters today because Dusk’s current site labels DuskEVM as Testnet. So a reader should not turn “partner” or “trade participant” into “the DuskEVM integration is already live” without a current confirmation of that specific step.
For someone following regulated-market adoption, this is a simple checklist: who is participating, which chain is supported, and what is actually live now?
When you see a partnership update, which proof would you want before calling the technical integration complete: participant status, a supported-chain announcement, or a live production route? @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk