#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Hmm, Yesterday, I was talking to someone about @Dusk . In the middle of the conversation, he asked a question : If a blockchain project really wants to survive for many years, is it enough if the technology is good ?
To be Honest - I also stoped a little after hearing the question. Yes, listen, because we usually talk a lot about the speed of the network, fees, privacy etcs. But after an ecosystem grows, who will run it, where will the funding come from, who will support new developers or projects - we don't think much about this aspect. Really, it's something to think about ! And that's why, from there, I started looking into Dusk's OpenDusk. At first, I thought it might be like another ten governance model. But later I saw that Dusk is moving towards creating a large treasury fund, which will be managed by tokenholders and the community. From this fund, there are plans to fund activities such as creating third-party projects, developer grants, and global marketing of the ecosystem. The topic is quite fascinating! Isn't it ? But right here, one thing struck me as quite different. Instead of leaving everything to the central team, a part of the ecosystem's growth is being given to community funding. It sounds good. But then the opposite question arises - will the community always be able to allocate funds correctly ? I mean, does increasing decentralization make decision making easier ? I don't think so. I'm not saying I'm right, I could be wrong. And besides this, Dusk is also working on Lightspeed Layer-2, the main goal is to increase transaction capacity and reduce fees a lot. This scalability can be important, especially for institutional bonds, shares or large amounts of transactions to be processed quickly. But for me, the real point is here. A network needs technology to survive for a long time but with it, funding, governance and community participation - everything needs a balance.
Hmm, now I want to see how well @Dusk can do this balance in the End.
Hmm, I'm still thinking about this issueđ€
Hmm, Yesterday, I was talking to someone about @Dusk . In the middle of the conversation, he asked a question : If a blockchain project really wants to survive for many years, is it enough if the technology is good ?
To be Honest - I also stoped a little after hearing the question. Yes, listen, because we usually talk a lot about the speed of the network, fees, privacy etcs. But after an ecosystem grows, who will run it, where will the funding come from, who will support new developers or projects - we don't think much about this aspect. Really, it's something to think about ! And that's why, from there, I started looking into Dusk's OpenDusk. At first, I thought it might be like another ten governance model. But later I saw that Dusk is moving towards creating a large treasury fund, which will be managed by tokenholders and the community. From this fund, there are plans to fund activities such as creating third-party projects, developer grants, and global marketing of the ecosystem. The topic is quite fascinating! Isn't it ? But right here, one thing struck me as quite different. Instead of leaving everything to the central team, a part of the ecosystem's growth is being given to community funding. It sounds good. But then the opposite question arises - will the community always be able to allocate funds correctly ? I mean, does increasing decentralization make decision making easier ? I don't think so. I'm not saying I'm right, I could be wrong. And besides this, Dusk is also working on Lightspeed Layer-2, the main goal is to increase transaction capacity and reduce fees a lot. This scalability can be important, especially for institutional bonds, shares or large amounts of transactions to be processed quickly. But for me, the real point is here. A network needs technology to survive for a long time but with it, funding, governance and community participation - everything needs a balance.
Hmm, now I want to see how well @Dusk can do this balance in the End.
Hmm, I'm still thinking about this issueđ€
