zunnu_

If you’re exploring DeFi on TON, STON.fi farming is worth understanding beyond the headline APRs.
STON.fi recently highlighted several active farming opportunities across TON, including:
• STON/USDT
• JETTON/USDT
• JETTON/GRAM
• STORM/GRAM
But the bigger story isn’t simply “how much can you farm?”
It’s about understanding why these farms exist and how liquidity providers actually earn.
🔹 STON/USDT
The STON/USDT pool currently highlights:
• 10,000 STON monthly rewards
• Up to 2× Boost Farm APR for eligible STON stakers
• No LP-token lock-up
• Ongoing farming
• Boost currently active until August 31
The boost mechanism is particularly interesting because eligible STON stakers can potentially increase their farming APR under the stated conditions.
🔹 JETTON/USDT & JETTON/GRAM
These two pools are connected to JETTON and the JetTon Games ecosystem on TON.
The stated incentives include:
• 200,000 JETTON monthly rewards for each farm
• Farming available through December 31, 2026
• No LP-token lock-up
This is a good example of how projects can use farming incentives to encourage deeper liquidity around their tokens.
🔹 STORM/GRAM
The STORM/GRAM farm offers:
• 30,000 STORM daily rewards
• Ongoing farming
• No LP-token lock-up
The reward number may look attractive, but it shouldn’t be viewed in isolation.
So how does liquidity farming actually work?
Imagine you deposit STON and USDT into the STON/USDT pool.
Your assets become part of the liquidity available to traders.
As traders use the pool, liquidity providers can earn a share of the applicable trading fees, while the farming program can provide additional token incentives.
In simple terms:
You provide liquidity → traders use the pool → the market gets deeper → incentives encourage more liquidity.
That’s one of the core mechanisms behind DeFi.
But here’s what matters most 👇
Farming rewards are not guaranteed profit.
A farm can offer an impressive APR while the underlying assets lose value.
You need to consider:
• Impermanent loss
• Token price volatility
• Changing APRs
• Reward token inflation
• Pool liquidity and trading volume
• Smart-contract risks
• Risks associated with the underlying projects
For example, earning more STON doesn’t automatically mean you made more money if STON itself falls significantly in value.
This is why APR should never be the only reason to enter a farm.
The real DeFi mindset
Before depositing your assets, ask:
What am I providing?
What exactly am I earning?
Where are the rewards coming from?
How long are the incentives expected to last?
What happens if the token price moves against me?
What risks am I accepting?
These questions are much more important than simply seeing a large APR and clicking “Farm.”
STON.fi’s farming opportunities show how incentives can help attract liquidity and support trading activity across the TON ecosystem.
But the responsibility still belongs to the liquidity provider.
Don’t farm because the APR looks good.
Farm because you understand the pool.
Research first. Calculate the risks. Then decide.
That’s how you move from simply chasing yield to actually understanding DeFi.
gSTON. 🟢

The January incident involving Dusk and its EVM bridge raises an interesting question that goes beyond the exploit itself: how should a privacy- and compliance-focused blockchain communicate when an incident is still unfolding?
On January 17, Dusk published an incident notice saying its monitoring systems had detected unusual activity involving a team-managed wallet. Bridge services were paused, addresses were rotated, and the team stated that user funds were not impacted.
The statement was relatively calm and controlled.
At the same time, other trackers were describing the situation differently, pointing to unauthorized activity involving DUSK moving through the Dusk-to-EVM bridge, with reports suggesting the amount could have reached millions.
That creates an obvious information gap.
It doesn’t necessarily mean one side was lying. During an active security incident, the team behind a protocol may not immediately know the complete scope of what happened. Confirming wallet movements, separating affected assets from unaffected funds, and understanding where assets eventually moved can take time.
But from a user perspective, that uncertainty matters.
The Bridge Is the Interesting Part
Dusk’s core protocol and its bridge shouldn’t necessarily be treated as the same thing.
A bridge is an additional layer connecting different ecosystems, and it can introduce risks that don’t necessarily exist within the underlying blockchain itself.
That’s why the January incident is worth examining carefully rather than simply reducing it to a headline saying “Dusk was exploited.”
The more useful questions are:
Which wallets were involved?
How much DUSK actually moved?
Which transactions were unauthorized?
Where did the assets go afterward?
How quickly was the bridge paused?
Did the on-chain movements match the public descriptions of the incident?
Those questions can potentially give a much clearer picture than either an official statement or third-party reporting alone.
Disclosure vs. Transparency
This is where the incident becomes particularly interesting for Dusk.
A project focused on privacy, compliance and financial infrastructure has to balance several competing priorities during a security event.
Move too quickly and you risk publishing incomplete or incorrect information.
Move too slowly and users may feel that important details are being withheld.
Dusk was relatively quick to communicate that the incident involved a team-managed wallet and that DuskDS itself was not affected. The more difficult part was establishing the complete scale of the event.
That distinction matters.
A lack of immediate numbers doesn’t automatically mean a project is hiding something. Sometimes the responsible approach is to confirm what is known before making stronger claims.
But once the situation is contained, users reasonably expect the data to become clearer.
The Blockchain Should Settle the Debate
The most interesting part of this incident isn’t deciding which narrative sounds better.
It’s checking the blockchain.
Wallet movements are ultimately harder to argue with than wording.
If the relevant addresses and transaction window can be identified, researchers can reconstruct the flow of funds and compare the actual movements against the different descriptions of the incident.
That doesn’t eliminate every uncertainty, but it moves the conversation from speculation toward evidence.
And that’s probably the most useful takeaway from the January incident.
Don’t just ask what happened. Follow the transactions.
Thea final picture should come from the data on chain not from whichever version of the story sounds the most convincing.
#dusk
@Dusk
$DUSK