查理-Charlie

The square will be rolling out creator task booths for $BABY over the next two days.

Right now, the one-times hedged locking of returns is in place. When it’s released, it will definitely get hit with a wave of selling. People outside the venue can also try to stay a bit empty to see—according to the announcement, it will be issued before the 25th. So it’s very likely today.

Awesome—WeChat can directly search the trend for $BNB

Does it seem like mainland regulation has loosened?

Dusk has been emphasizing that it’s different from other chains. Different in what way? Its self-developed Rusk virtual machine, the Phoenix privacy transaction model, and selective disclosure—these are all things built from scratch, with no compatibility with any existing standards. Eight years and tens of millions of funding poured in—what’s at stake is differentiation. @Dusk

But what is Dusk currently most urgently pushing? It’s DuskEVM—so it can run Solidity contracts, enabling EVM developers to migrate directly. In the July progress update, it said it’s in the final integration stage—clearly the highest priority task.

I’m not saying compatibility with the EVM is wrong. The reality is simple: developers out there won’t spend time learning a whole new set of things just for $DUSK . If you want people to come, you have to speak their language. That’s pragmatic.

But what is the cost of pragmatism? You spent eight years building differentiation, and now you’re bypassing it with a compatibility layer. Developers come in to write Solidity and run it on DuskEVM—what is the fundamental difference compared to running on any other EVM chain? Can Dusk’s self-developed privacy and compliance capabilities be fully preserved within the EVM compatibility layer, or will they be compromised? If they’re compromised, then after eight years of work, what you end up with is only a story. #dusk

Even more awkward is the timing. DuskEVM is still in final integration and hasn’t launched officially yet. Meanwhile, Dusk’s native system has already been running for a year and a half—on-chain, there are only a couple hundred transactions per day, and no one is using it. So the logic becomes: since nobody is using your own thing, you have to conform to someone else’s standard, hoping their developers will come.

This isn’t called an upgrade. It’s changing course after accepting defeat. Accepting defeat isn’t shameful—many projects have taken this step. But you have to admit a fact: the proprietary system built over eight years hasn’t won market validation. Whether Dusk EVM can actually draw people over is the next bet, not the payoff for the last one.

A certain chain keeps talking every day about becoming the infrastructure for regulated assets, wanting institutions to put real money in. What are the prerequisites for this goal? At the very least, make it convenient for people to buy your coin.

But the story of @Dusk over the past two months has been the opposite.

In June, bn delisted the DUSK/BTC trading pair. In July, CoinTR directly delisted DUSK/USDT and DUSK/TRY, and withdrawals were only kept until the end of August. In the same week, Bitget also delisted DUSK/USDT and even pulled the wealth-management products along with it.

Those three exchanges—within two months—successively narrowed down #dusk ’s trading channels.

Delisting from an exchange doesn’t necessarily mean the project has problems. Sometimes it’s simply because trading volume is too low to justify maintenance. But that’s precisely the more painful explanation. It’s not that you committed some mistake and got punished—it’s that your presence is so low that people feel it’s not worth keeping you.

For Dusk, this is especially upsetting. It’s not a meme coin that needs to survive on retail trading volume. But its target customers are institutions. Before institutions enter, what will they look at—where this coin can be bought, how deep the liquidity is, and whether it’s easy to enter and exit. If even the trading pairs are being cut, what would institutions think when they see that signal?

The coin is still on bn with a USDT pair; it hasn’t reached the worst case yet. But the trend is contraction rather than expansion—and it’s happening in this year when the RWA narrative is at its hottest. The sector is heating up, while your distribution channels are cooling down. Those two lines moving in opposite directions isn’t a good sign.

$DUSK doesn’t need yet another technical upgrade announcement—it needs to find a way to keep itself from disappearing from exchanges’ shelves.

Personal view only; not investment advice.

640, 800. @TermMax In the official mechanism example, when these two numbers are placed next to each other, I paused. The calculation in this official example is as follows: using ETH worth 1000 USDC as collateral, mint 800 FT at an 80% rate. Each FT corresponds to a maturity repayment amount of 1 USDC. Then, in the example, these 800 FT are sold at 0.80 USDC per FT, yielding 640 USDC.

At maturity, you need to repay 800 USDC, or an equivalent amount in FT. That means you receive 640 in cash, but the promissory note says 800. #TermMax

The difference between 640 USDC and 800 USDC is 160 USDC. The example does not provide a time period, so 160 cannot be directly converted into an annualized figure. The example also does not explain where the 0.80 selling price comes from. 160 is the difference between the maturity repayment amount and the selling proceeds in the example.

All figures come from the official mechanism example, not the current quoted prices.

Bought a bit of Huangmao's meme in the spot market $TRUMP

Feels like something else is coming later. The price isn't that high either. Especially when they just launched the coin before—seeing them drain all the market liquidity—that scene is basically burned into my memory.

Many people see @TermMax listed as a fixed interest rate and automatically assume that you can always exit at any time and get back a certain amount. That’s one layer off.

The FT of #TermMax is an ERC-20 token. You can transfer it and trade it. The mechanism is: buy FT at a price below face value, and at maturity the protocol redeems the corresponding debt tokens at face value. What’s fixed is the redemption path at maturity—discount purchase, redemption at face value, and the difference can be calculated at the time of purchase. The official example of buying with 100 and receiving 110 at maturity is explaining the relationship between buying at a discount and redeeming at maturity. Those numbers are for illustrating the mechanism; they don’t represent the quoted prices you see when you open the page now.

If you want to exit before maturity, you can take the FT and sell it on the market. But then the execution price is determined by the market—whether there’s a counterparty willing to take it, and whether you can sell it out at the price you want. The protocol neither provides you with that nor guarantees it. At that moment, both price and liquidity are uncertain.

Holding until maturity to redeem and capture the spread is completely different from listing it and selling it on the secondary market midway. One relies on a protocol’s maturity settlement, and the other depends on what price the market is willing to offer at that time. Fixed returns and exit liquidity were always two different things.

Add 4000 $DUSK to positions that have already been activated. But what increases is active staking by only 3600. The remaining 400 is not reduced or deducted—it goes into the locked portion. The coins still belong to the user; they just do not participate in consensus.

#dusk will split such an additional deposit into two parts: 90% goes into active staking, and 10% remains in the locked portion. 4000 is the amount added into the position this time; 3600 is the amount that joins consensus immediately. At first glance it’s only a difference of 400, but actually the same additional deposit is recorded in two different states. The total position size increases by 4000, while only the active portion increases by 3600. This 400 is precisely why the active quantity ends up being short by that amount. @Dusk

This splitting happens only when additional funds are added after the position has already been activated. If it’s the first staking, or if you add more while the position is still waiting for activation, it will not be split into 90% and 10%; that addition will follow the original activation time. Here in DUSK, what truly gets separated is the amount added to the position versus the amount that participates in consensus right away.

A couple of days ago I looked at TermMax’s market page and saw that tokenized stock assets can already be used as collateral to borrow USDT. I actually took a closer look at this.

For people who hold this kind of asset, when they truly need funds, there are usually only two options: sell the position, or find other money. TermMax offers a third way to handle it—keep the assets, use them as collateral to withdraw stablecoins, and also set the borrowing interest rate and the maturity time in advance.

When applied to stock-type assets, this is easier to understand than just talking about a fixed interest rate. You know how long you’ll borrow and what the cost will be, so your funding plan can be calculated ahead of time.

But the issue is also very practical. Stock prices will move, the collateral ratio will change accordingly, and the debt still needs to be dealt with at maturity. When market conditions are unfavorable, a fixed interest rate can’t save a collateralized position.

So when I look at TermMax now, the core isn’t only the lending interest rate. I’m more interested in whether it can generate sufficient borrowing demand and liquidity for this kind of real-world asset. Only if there are truly people who长期 hold assets as collateral to borrow money does this product really stand.

@TermMax #TermMax

For individual research and record only; not investment advice.

There’s something rather awkward about this. On tokenizing regulated assets and putting them on-chain, demand really has taken off over the past year. Traditional institutions have been pushing tokenization and on-chain settlement—this direction isn’t just wishful thinking; real money has started moving.

And @Dusk is one of the very few chains that has been devoted to doing this since 2018. Privacy, compliance, regulated assets—today, its narrative sounds even more convincing than it did eight years ago.

In theory, when the winds change, the one standing most upright should be the first to benefit. But the reality is: demand has risen, yet deals haven’t been coming to Dusk.

The chains that are truly handling institutional RWA are those that originally built general-purpose chains and later opportunistically filled in the compliance pieces, as well as a whole bunch of consortium chains and permissioned chains with traditional finance backgrounds that jumped in directly. They may not understand privacy plus compliance better than $DUSK , but they have something #dusk doesn’t: liquidity, developers, and relationships that institutions already know.

This points to a more fundamental problem with Dusk. It put all its eggs in whether the narrative is right. But institutions choose a chain based on whether the chain has money, has people, who they can contact if something goes wrong—only after that do they consider whether your technical roadmap is “pure.” Dusk’s technical roadmap is clean, but the items right before it are precisely what it lacks the most.

So Dusk’s current situation is a bit awkward. It hasn’t taken the wrong direction—perhaps it has even taken the most upright one. But the demand in this track is being taken over by competitors whose narratives aren’t as “pure” and who have more resources than Dusk. Being positioned correctly for the right wind and actually catching the wind are two different things.

For eight years it managed to get the narrative right, only to find that getting the narrative right doesn’t automatically mean winning. Whether it can now seize at least a single real institutional-asset deal from this wave of RWA demand is more important than releasing ten more products.

Didn’t expect that in my lifetime I’d still get to see the 2000s’ “second pancake”; I’m finally about to be freed.

Is a bull market really coming? $ETH

There’s a task you can do in the plaza’s reward center: if you have the 200U stock trading volume (counts for both buys and sells), it’s worth 2U—$TSLAB

The loss isn’t high. Buy and sell instantly; the difference is only around a few tenths.

This morning while completing tasks, I saw @TermMax and then took a closer look at this project.

To be honest, I’ve always had a bit of reservation about many lending/borrowing agreements. The reason is simple: on-chain interest rates often fluctuate. When opening a position, it might feel acceptable, but after a few days the cost is no longer the same.

The point that makes TermMax worth a second look is that it offers fixed-rate borrowing, laying out the borrowing cost and the maturity time upfront. That is much more friendly for people who frequently manage positions.

But my own judgment is also straightforward: fixed interest can solve cost uncertainty, but it can’t fix directional judgment.

Even if you borrow well, if you take the position in the wrong direction, the results won’t be good. So I’ll treat this project as a tool-like protocol—suited for people with clear time horizons and capital plans. It’s not really for those who jump in and start adding leverage randomly.

I will do tasks like this lately, but what I care about more is whether the mechanism actually works. Whether it’s worth continuing to look after TMX remains to be seen too—we’ll have to wait for more real usage data. #TermMax

For personal observations only and does not constitute investment advice.

DUSK@Dusk This time we added an automatic lock to the web wallet. If the page is left open and someone walks away, previously when you came back it would still be in the unlocked state; now, if there’s no specified action for 15 minutes, it automatically returns to the locked page. If there is a specified action, the timer will reset. People who frequently keep the wallet running in the background will have to enter the password more often when they return—so yes, it adds one more step—but it’s still more reassuring than keeping the wallet unlocked all the time. For people who only occasionally open the web wallet, you might not feel much. But for those who habitually leave the page open, you’ll clearly notice an extra lock.

The seed phrase is still stored locally in the browser. We increased the encryption iteration count from 10,000 rounds to 600,000 rounds, so each password guess requires dozens of times more computation. Old records won’t suddenly become invalid due to this upgrade. After a normal unlock, only when conditions are met will we attempt migration to the new format. If the migration doesn’t succeed, the old records won’t be deleted as a result either. And 600,000 rounds isn’t a security guarantee—it just makes each attempt more computationally expensive. $DUSK

All of the changes this time are for things used locally by the web wallet; they don’t involve main-chain rules or coin-price mechanisms. #dusk

Awesome! Did Sun Ge start poisoning at major exchanges?

After HTX was blacklisted by major exchanges, he sent small amounts of money to users’ exchanges, which triggered reviews and led to the funds being frozen—it really fits Sun Ge’s style, huh 😂

The progress Dusk has made in the past half year is impressive—there really is a lot going on. The team is finishing the last integration for DuskEVM, Dusk Trade is in progress, a new wallet and Dusk Connect have released a developer preview, they even open-sourced a tool to detect code drift, and then there’s OpenDusk for community governance. It’s a full page of updates.

But after reading for a while, the more I look, the more something feels off.

This is a project that started back in 2018; the mainnet went live as early as January 2025—now it’s been a year and a half. For a project that’s eight years in the making, you’d expect that at this stage it would be wrapping things up, polishing one or two things until they work in real usage. But @Dusk is still laying out its plan, while multiple tracks—L1, EVM, trading, wallets, identity, governance—are all running at the same time. Each one is still in progress, and none is in a truly usable state.

The more products they spread out, the wider the coverage: on-chain, there are only a couple hundred transactions per day, and only one or so production application can be verified. Put these two together, and it doesn’t mean the team isn’t working—on the contrary, they’re very busy. The problem is what they’re busy doing: constantly starting new things, rather than letting what already exists actually get used.

What early-stage projects fear most is exactly this. It’s not that there hasn’t been progress; it’s that all the progress is on the supply side—always building tools, building features, building infrastructure—while the demand side never really connects. Whether you build ten things nobody uses, or build one thing nobody uses, it’s essentially the same. The difference is that the former burns more time and effort. #dusk

DuskEVM is almost ready—it could be a turning point. If it’s compatible with EVM, at least it can lower the barrier and let more outside developers come in. But what I’d rather see isn’t what it’s adding next. Among everything it’s already released, which one can be the first to produce real users and real transactions? Eight years in, $DUSK isn’t missing new functionality—it’s missing the fact that someone is actually using one of these

How do you think the Dusk products have been doing?

The square has opened a new “quick in and out” project! A 5-day cycle, Top 500, with roughly 50U per person.

The requirement is to hold at least two Alpha points, then complete a one-time social media follow task. After that, you must make a post in the square every day for five days. Getting into the top 500 is enough to receive the reward.

Unfortunately, my balance isn’t over 100U yet, so I don’t have any points. I’ll be able to top up only after two days to participate. I don’t know if I can make it in time…

I want to figure out exactly how many coins are actually in circulation with that number $DUSK . I looked into it, but two major data sites give numbers that don’t match.

CoinMarketCap says circulation is 499 million, total supply is 500 million, and the maximum is 1 billion. On CoinGecko, both circulation and total supply are written as 598 million, the maximum is 1 billion, and the market cap it calculates still doesn’t line up with its own stated circulating supply. For the same coin, on the same day, the two sites differ by almost one hundred million coins. #dusk

Where’s the discrepancy? Honestly, I can understand. Dusk’s supply is split into two phases: the genesis release was 500 million, and this portion was fully unlocked by 2022. The other 500 million is minted gradually through block rewards—about 170,000 coins per day—until it slowly reaches the 1 billion cap. The difference is that some sites count the already-minted block rewards in circulation, while others don’t, so the numbers end up fighting each other.

It sounds like a small issue, but it matters to coin holders. @Dusk

Look at market cap and FDV—they’re calculated as price multiplied by supply. If the supply definition isn’t consistent, then is the market cap 30 million or more? Is FDV 60 million or something else? Which one do you believe. More importantly, those 500 million in block rewards are real new coins being minted every day—not locked up inventory. A lot of people look at Dusk’s 500 million total supply and think the market is small and inflation is low. But its actual ceiling is 1 billion; half of the amount is still on the way, slowly being dumped out.

I’m not saying Dusk is hiding anything—this two-phase supply is written clearly in its whitepaper. The problem is that most people only look at the number shown in their trading app, and that number is simply not accurate.

You think you’re buying a low-inflation, small-cap asset. In reality, you’re holding something that still needs to be issued another 100%, getting diluted every day.

Figure out what you actually hold—always more important than price