AbdullRauf

At first I assumed selective disclosure meant the user stayed in control. You hold the credential. You decide what gets shown. You choose what stays hidden.

On Dusk the design is more precise than that. There is disclosure for users, proving an attribute without handing over the underlying data. And there is disclosure for authorized parties, giving regulators or issuers access that the user cannot simply refuse. Both get called selective disclosure. Only one of them puts the selection in the user’s hands.

What held my attention is how easily the second version borrows the language of the first. Regulatory access described as empowerment. Auditor visibility described as privacy. The words stay the same. The direction of control reverses.

I still cannot tell from the documentation exactly where the user’s ability to refuse ends and the system’s ability to access begins. That boundary exists. It is just rarely stated in plain terms.

Who is selective disclosure actually for the person holding the credential, or the system deciding who gets to read it?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

At first I assumed fixed-rate protocols always leave large piles of capital earning nothing while waiting for borrowers.

Spent time with the design and noticed the opposite. Unborrowed capital does not sit idle.

It is automatically moved into floating-rate markets so it continues earning until a fixed-rate borrower appears. Liquidity providers no longer face a hard choice between locking a rate and holding dead money. The two sides stay connected without forcing that trade-off.

I keep wondering how cleanly the hand-off works when rates on the floating side shift suddenly.

Is the deeper limit in fixed-rate markets the matching problem, or simply the cost of capital that stays unused?

#termmax @TermMax

good night

go

go

Citadel by @Dusk flips the KYC model — prove what matters without handing over the data. So why are institutions still collecting everything? $DUSK #dusk

GIVEAWAY ALERT 🧧
We're giving away 2000 gifts to our Square Family as a huge thank you for your support!
To Enter:
✅ Follow
✅ Share this post
✅ Comment "666 !"
Random winners will be selected. Good luck, everyone! 🚀

At first I assumed KYC was a data collection exercise with compliance benefits attached as justification. You hand over your passport, your address, your income range, your source of funds. The institution stores it. Somewhere a regulator can theoretically access it. The data collection is the product. The compliance is the reason given for it. Citadel, the identity layer built into @Dusk , proposes something structurally different. You prove attributes without revealing the underlying data. EU residency confirmed without an address on file. Accredited investor status verified without a net worth figure attached. The proof travels. The data does not. What held my attention was not the cryptography, which is well established, but the institutional question underneath it. Every KYC process I have ever been through collected far more than it needed to verify the one thing it was actually asking. Citadel makes visible how much of that collection was necessary and how much was habit. What I cannot determine from the documentation is which regulated venues are actually running Citadel in production today versus which ones are still evaluating it. The technology works on paper and in testing. The question that stays with me is this: if institutions can verify everything they need without collecting the data they currently collect, and they keep collecting it anyway, what was the data ever really for?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk

At first I assumed fixed-rate borrowing still moved with the market somehow.

Spent time reading how the tokens actually split.

Borrowers issue FTs equal to the full amount they will repay at maturity.

They only sell the interest part for XTs.

That single step gives them the debt tokens right away and locks the cost completely.

The rate is set the moment the interest portion is sold.

Nothing later in the market can change what they owe.

Most people still think of fixed rates as soft promises.

I keep wondering how many borrowers realize they already own the entire repayment schedule on day one.

What would change if more people treated the locked cost as the real starting point instead of something that might still shift?

#termmax @TermMax

At first I assumed buying DUSK meant holding DUSK. Same token, same network, ready to use. The actual picture is more fragmented than that. Three versions of DUSK exist simultaneously. Native DUSK on the Dusk mainnet, which is what the protocol actually runs on. ERC20 DUSK on Ethereum. BEP20 DUSK on Binance Smart Chain. The two bridge versions predate mainnet and exist for migration purposes. They are not the same thing as native DUSK, and using them as if they were means your tokens are sitting on a different chain entirely, earning nothing, participating in nothing, waiting for a migration step that most holders never complete. What caught my attention was how invisible this distinction is at the point of purchase. An exchange lists DUSK. You buy DUSK. Whether you received the native token or a bridge version depends on which chain that exchange uses for custody, and most listings do not make that obvious at the moment it matters. The migration guide exists. The step is documented. What @Dusk cannot control is whether anyone reads it before assuming the token they hold is the token the protocol uses. A network secured by staking is only as secure as the stake that actually reaches it. $DUSK sitting on Ethereum is not staking on Dusk. Which leaves the question worth sitting with: when the same ticker means three different things on three different chains, does the market price reflect the value of the protocol or the average of everything people think they bought?

#dusk @Dusk $ETH $BNB

$TUT /USDT Buy Entry Plan

Since the price has taken a good move from the bottom of 0.02893 and climbed above the MA 200:

Best Entry Zone: 0.03280 – 0.03340 (If the price takes a small pullback to retest MA 200 or MA 5)

Stop Loss (SL): Below 0.03200

Take Profit (TP) Targets:

TP 1: 0.03480

TP 2: 0.03650

TP 3: 0.03820

Dusk’s 36-Year Emission Curve: Paying the Highest Rewards to Those Who Believe Before the Network Scales.$DUSK

Dusk’s 36-Year Emission Curve: Paying the Highest Rewards to Those Who Believe Before the Network Scales.$DUSK

At first I assumed token emissions were something protocols designed to end quickly, a short window to bootstrap participation before the network sustains itself through transaction fees alone. Dusk runs on a different timeline. Five hundred million DUSK will be emitted over thirty-six years to fund staking rewards, following a geometric decay that halves every four years. The first four years emit two hundred and fifty million, half the entire emission schedule, in a single period. The math is deliberate. Early stakers earn the most. Later stakers earn progressively less from the same act of participation. What I kept thinking about is what that curve actually selects for. The people staking now are not just earning rewards. They are being paid, at the highest rate that will ever exist, to secure a network that has not yet reached the scale that would justify that payment through usage alone. The emission is subsidizing belief before usage can sustain it. What I cannot resolve is whether the curve is long enough to matter. Bitcoin's halving works because the network grew into its fee market before emissions became marginal. Dusk has thirty-six years and a regulated finance thesis. Whether that thesis generates enough transaction volume to make staking worth it when @Dusk emissions approach zero is the only question the schedule cannot answer. Can $DUSK fees replace emissions before the halvings make staking feel like diminishing returns?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk