JOSEPH DESOZE

@Dusk $DUSK
Kiedy patrzę na Dusk Foundation, nie widzę tylko kolejnej warstwy 1 próbującej konkurować o uwagę, widzę projekt, który wyrósł z bardzo realnej frustracji związanej z tym, jak pieniądze poruszają się w dzisiejszym świecie, ponieważ w tradycyjnych finansach wszystko wydaje się ciężkie, wolne i strzeżone przez warstwy pośredników, a w kryptowalutach wszystko wydaje się szybkie, ale często zbyt odsłonięte, zbyt publiczne i zbyt ryzykowne dla instytucji, które potrzebują zasad, aby przetrwać. Dusk został założony w 2018 roku z wyraźną misją budowy regulowanej, skoncentrowanej na prywatności infrastruktury finansowej, a to, co sprawia, że ta misja wydaje się inna, to jak akceptuje najtrudniejszą prawdę z góry: systemy finansowe nie mogą żyć na obietnicach „ufaj mi”, potrzebują prywatności dla użytkowników i firm, ale także potrzebują odpowiedzialności i audytowalności dla regulatorów, a większość łańcuchów mocno przechyla się w jedną stronę i ignoruje drugą. Więc kiedy mówią, że budują fundament dla instytucjonalnych aplikacji finansowych, zgodnego DeFi i tokenizowanych aktywów z rzeczywistego świata, to nie są tylko słowa marketingowe, to oświadczenie o budowaniu blockchaina, który może poradzić sobie z emocjonalną rzeczywistością finansów, która polega na tym, że ludzie chcą wolności, ale także chcą bezpieczeństwa i chcą kontroli nad swoimi własnymi aktywami, nie czując, że chodzą po cienkim lodzie.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus
Walrus Sites ma najwięcej sensu, gdy opisuję to jak rzeczywisty problem zamiast połyskliwego protokołu, ponieważ w momencie, gdy ludzie polegają na Twoim interfejsie, frontend przestaje być „po prostu statyczną stroną” i staje się najbardziej kruchą obietnicą, jaką dajesz użytkownikom, a wszystkim znane jest, jak szybko ta obietnica może się rozpaść, gdy hosting jest powiązany z zasadami konta jednego dostawcy, stanem rozliczeń, awariami regionalnymi, zmianami polityki lub utratą dostępu zespołu do starego pulpitu. Dlatego Walrus Sites istnieje: próbuje nadać aplikacjom statycznym dom, który zachowuje się bardziej jak własna infrastruktura niż wynajęta wygoda, dzieląc odpowiedzialności w sposób wyraźny, umieszczając rzeczywiste pliki strony w Walrus jako trwałe dane, a tożsamość strony i uprawnienia do aktualizacji w Sui jako stan na łańcuchu, dzięki czemu ten sam adres może nadal działać nawet gdy zawartość się zmienia, a prawo do aktualizacji jest zabezpieczone przez własność, a nie przez kogoś, kto nadal ma dane logowania do platformy hostingu.

@Vanarchain $VANRY
When I look at Vanar Chain, I don’t start with the usual crypto question of “how fast is it” or “how many transactions can it push,” because the project keeps pulling the conversation back to something more human, which is what it feels like to use, what it costs in a way people can understand, and whether a normal person can join without fear or confusion. They’re trying to build a Layer 1 that makes sense for games, entertainment, brands, and everyday digital experiences, the kind of places where users don’t want a lecture before they click a button, and where one bad moment, like a fee surprise or a broken login flow, can lose trust instantly. That’s why the Vanar story is not only “we have a chain,” it’s also “we have a stack,” because they keep describing their ecosystem as a path from the base network to tools and products that help applications store meaning, reason over information, and automate actions in a way that feels closer to how real life works than how most blockchains work today. I’m saying that with warmth, but also with honesty, because this ambition is the whole point of Vanar, and it’s also where the hardest challenges live.

The first thing to understand is why Vanar was built in the first place, and it comes down to adoption pressure. In consumer apps, the smallest friction becomes a wall, and blockchains have always been full of friction in the exact places mainstream users touch, like onboarding, gas fees, and confusing steps that make people feel like they’re doing something risky. Vanar keeps aiming at that pain by pushing a simple promise: costs should be predictable, the experience should be smooth, and developers should not have to reinvent everything just to launch a real product. That’s why technical choices like being compatible with the Ethereum tooling world matter so much here, because it’s not only about ideology, it’s about getting builders to ship quickly with tools they already know, and it’s about lowering the psychological barrier for teams that are used to normal software development timelines. If you’ve ever watched a game studio struggle with complicated wallet flows or unpredictable network fees, you can feel why this project keeps saying “real world adoption” like it’s a mission, not a slogan.

Now let’s walk through how the system works, step by step, in the simplest way. A user starts with a wallet, and Vanar’s direction leans toward making wallets feel more like an app account, which is why you’ll see them talk about account abstraction as part of the onboarding story, because the goal is to reduce the fear of seed phrases and make recovery and permissions feel more familiar. Once a user signs an action, the transaction goes into the network like any other EVM style chain, validators pick it up, and blocks get produced on a fast rhythm that they target around a few seconds. Inside each block, there are practical parameters that reveal how they’re shaping the network for consumer load, including a gas limit level that suggests they expect many everyday actions rather than only rare, giant transactions. They also describe transaction ordering in a straightforward first in first out style, which is one of those details that sounds boring until you realize how important it is for user trust, because when people feel like the system is fair and consistent, they stop treating it like a casino and start treating it like infrastructure.

The part most people will feel immediately, even if they never learn the technical words, is Vanar’s fixed fee approach, because it’s trying to solve one of the most painful emotional problems in Web3, which is the moment you expect something to cost “a little” and it suddenly costs “a lot.” Vanar’s design tries to anchor transaction fees to a stable value in dollars, then convert that to the native token amount at the protocol level, so users and apps can experience a consistent cost in human terms even if the token price moves. In their architecture, the base transaction fee is recorded directly in the block header as a value that becomes the reference point, and then heavier transaction categories can use multipliers so that complex actions pay more without breaking the promise for normal everyday actions. The system relies on token price updates that are checked against multiple market signals, and if you want one mainstream reference that may be used in that mix, Binance can be part of the cross checking logic. The key idea is that the network is trying to do the math for you so the experience stays simple, but the deeper truth is that this also creates a new responsibility: the price update pipeline must be robust, resistant to manipulation, and well monitored, because if price feeds wobble, fee predictability wobbles with them. It becomes a tradeoff, and it’s worth saying out loud, because good design is not about pretending tradeoffs don’t exist, it’s about choosing which tradeoffs help the user.

Consensus is another place where Vanar’s priorities show clearly. They use a model that starts from Proof of Authority and adds a reputation based process for onboarding validators, which is basically a way of saying “we want known operators first, then we want to expand carefully.” In the early stage, that can make coordination and stability easier, and it can also look more attractive to brands that want accountability and clear standards, but it also raises the long term question people always ask: how wide does the validator set become, how transparent is the onboarding, and how much real decentralization is achieved over time. They’re not ignoring that question, they’re choosing a path, and the credibility of that path will be proven by actions, not by words. If the network gradually opens, if independent validators become meaningful participants, and if governance becomes a real tool rather than a decorative feature, then the early tradeoff can be justified. If it stays narrow, then the same design that helps stability early can become the main criticism later.

Where Vanar tries to go beyond “just another chain” is in the idea of a full stack built around meaning and automation. In their public materials, they talk about a semantic memory layer that turns raw files into compact onchain objects, and a reasoning layer that can understand context and help systems respond intelligently, plus automation and industry focused flows that connect the infrastructure to real use cases. If you imagine a world where a game, a digital ticket, a brand loyalty program, and an AI assistant can all reference the same verifiable objects, not just links, you can feel the appeal, because it’s closer to how real businesses work, where documents, assets, and rules need to remain available and trusted over time. We’re seeing more projects talk about this kind of “data with meaning” approach, but Vanar is making it central to its identity, and that’s bold. It’s also hard, because once you move from simple token transfers to systems that store and interpret richer objects, you have to care about performance, storage costs, security boundaries, developer ergonomics, and the risk of over promising. The vision is exciting, and the execution will decide whether it becomes a true advantage or only a beautiful diagram.

The ecosystem side matters too, because adoption is not only technology, it’s places where people actually show up. Vanar points to real product rails like Virtua in the metaverse direction and a games network known as VGN, and the logic is simple: if you already have consumer facing experiences, you can drive real usage rather than waiting for someone else to build it for you. That’s also why their narrative touches multiple mainstream verticals like gaming, entertainment, brand solutions, and even eco oriented ideas, because they’re trying to be a chain that feels useful, not just a chain that feels clever. I’m always careful with broad claims, but I do like the emotional clarity here, because when a blockchain talks only about itself, it often stays trapped in crypto culture, and when it talks about products and users, it at least aims at the world outside.

Now let’s talk about what people should watch, because this is where hope becomes measurable. If you want to judge Vanar fairly, start with block production stability, not only average speed but consistency during load, because consumer apps don’t care about peak performance, they care about the worst day. Watch confirmation reliability and reorganization behavior, because even rare instability can break user trust in games and marketplaces. Watch fee predictability over time, especially during token volatility, because the whole promise of fixed fees is that the user experience remains calm when markets are not calm. Watch the health of the price update mechanism, how often it updates, how it behaves when data is noisy, and whether fallbacks are rare and well handled, because too many emergency modes usually means the system is living under stress. Watch validator participation, the number of independent operators, their geographic and organizational diversity, and how governance decisions are made. Then watch real adoption signals that are difficult to fake, like sustained active addresses coming from consumer apps, retention, developer activity, and the growth of actual applications that people use weekly, not only the number of announcements.

Risks deserve a real conversation, and I’ll say it in a human way: every project that tries to make something feel simple has to fight complexity behind the scenes, and Vanar is choosing several areas where complexity can bite. The fixed fee model depends on strong pricing logic, and if that system is attacked, disrupted, or poorly maintained, users will feel it immediately. The Proof of Authority style approach can create concerns about centralization, and if the validator expansion is slow or unclear, critics will not be gentle. The multi layer stack idea, especially anything that touches “AI reasoning,” can raise expectations faster than engineering can safely deliver, and the gap between vision and reality is where people lose faith. There are also general blockchain risks that never disappear, like smart contract vulnerabilities, ecosystem scams that can ride on top of any chain, bridge and interoperability risks if the ecosystem depends on moving assets across networks, and regulatory uncertainty for projects that aim at mainstream brands. None of this means failure is inevitable, it just means the project must be disciplined, transparent, and humble enough to treat trust as something you earn daily, not something you claim once.

So how might the future unfold if the team keeps pushing forward? The most believable path is one where Vanar becomes quietly dependable, where builders choose it because it behaves like infrastructure rather than drama, where fees remain predictable in human terms, and where onboarding continues to feel less like “enter a secret society” and more like “open an app.” If the validator set broadens in a way the community can clearly verify, the network can grow stronger without losing the stability that helps brands feel safe. If the memory and reasoning layers produce real developer tools that reduce cost and complexity, then Vanar can offer something beyond speed, something closer to a full platform for consumer experiences, and that is where an L1 can stop competing only on numbers and start competing on usefulness. And if the ecosystem products keep delivering real user journeys, not only hype cycles, then the chain will not have to beg for attention, because usage will speak in the only language that matters, which is people showing up and staying.

In the end, I think the most important thing about Vanar is not that it claims to be for the next wave of users, it’s that it keeps trying to design for how people actually behave, because most people don’t want to think about block times, gas mechanics, or consensus models, they want a fair system, a clear cost, and an experience that doesn’t punish them for being new. They’re building toward that feeling, and if they keep turning big technical ambition into simple, consistent experiences, it can become the kind of chain that earns trust one ordinary interaction at a time, and that’s how real adoption arrives, quietly, steadily, and then all at once.
#Vanar

@Dusk $DUSK
Dusk started in 2018 with a problem that feels simple when you say it out loud, but extremely hard when you try to build a real solution: finance needs privacy to function like finance, yet modern finance also needs auditability to stay legal, trusted, and stable, and most public blockchains force you to choose one side or the other. I’m not talking about privacy as a gimmick or a hiding place, I mean the normal human privacy that businesses and individuals rely on every day, like not exposing salaries, positions, contracts, counterparties, trade intent, or personal holdings to the entire world just because a transfer happened, and at the same time not turning the whole system into a sealed black box where nobody can prove anything went right. That tension is where Dusk lives, and it’s why they describe themselves as a layer 1 designed for regulated and privacy-focused financial infrastructure, because they’re not aiming only for speculation or quick experiments, they’re aiming for the kind of on-chain environment where institutions can build applications that still respect laws, reporting demands, and real-world accountability without sacrificing confidentiality by default.

The way Dusk tries to solve this is not by making one giant, rigid machine that does everything in one style, but by building a modular foundation where the most important job is settlement, finality, and security, and everything else can be added on top without destabilizing the base. At the heart of the network is the settlement layer, often described as the core that holds consensus, data availability, and the rules that make the chain a single source of truth, and then there are execution environments built above it so developers can choose how they want to run smart contracts while still inheriting the same underlying settlement guarantees. That modular idea matters more than it sounds, because regulated finance changes slowly, rules evolve, products evolve, and the chain that survives is the one that can adapt without breaking, so Dusk’s design feels like a promise that the foundation remains stable even as different “application worlds” evolve on top of it, and that’s a very different mindset from chains that treat experimentation as the primary goal.

To really feel how Dusk works, it helps to walk through value movement from the inside out, because privacy infrastructure is easy to misunderstand if you only look from far away. Dusk’s base layer supports two native ways to send value that can exist side by side, and that choice is one of the most practical things they did, because it admits that not every transaction needs the same treatment. One model is transparent and account-based, meaning balances and transfers are visible in the way people are used to on many chains, and the other model is shielded and note-based, meaning funds are represented as private notes and spent with cryptographic proofs rather than by openly moving amounts from one visible balance to another. If you’re thinking, “Why would a chain offer both,” the answer is human reality, because there are situations where transparency is required or simply operationally useful, and there are situations where confidentiality is essential, and Dusk is trying to be honest about that instead of forcing everyone into a single extreme.

The shielded side is where Dusk’s personality becomes clear, because they’re not selling privacy as magic, they’re building privacy as a system that still proves correctness. In the private model, the chain doesn’t rely on the world trusting a hidden database, it relies on zero-knowledge proofs that let a sender prove they have the right to spend, that the rules are respected, and that the same private funds aren’t spent twice, without exposing the sensitive details publicly. The usual flow, in plain language, is that private funds live as encrypted notes, those notes get committed into a structure that the chain can later reference, and when you spend you create a proof that your inputs are valid and that the outputs follow the rules, while the chain also checks a special marker that prevents double spending without revealing which note you spent. This is the part that makes the system feel “real” to serious users, because privacy isn’t coming from secrecy alone, it’s coming from verification, and that is the difference between a private system people can trust and a private system that only claims it should be trusted.

Now the moment people hear “privacy,” they often assume it means “no one can ever audit anything,” and that’s exactly where Dusk tries to rewrite the story in a calm, regulated way. The idea is not to make everything invisible forever, but to make confidentiality the default while still allowing selective disclosure when it’s truly necessary, so instead of broadcasting sensitive details to everyone, the system can support controlled visibility for the right parties, at the right time, under the right rules. They’re building toward a world where someone can prove they followed a policy, prove they were eligible, prove a transaction was valid, and still not leak private business information to the public by accident, and if it becomes normal that institutions run tokenized products on-chain, this kind of selective and verifiable privacy stops being optional and starts being basic infrastructure.

Under the surface, a chain that wants to serve financial markets also has to treat finality like a sacred word, because when money moves, “probably final” is not a comforting feeling, and “final in a predictable window” is what professional systems are built on. Dusk uses a proof-of-stake approach with a committee-style process that selects participants to propose and attest to blocks, and the design aims for deterministic finality rather than leaving users stuck in the anxiety of long probabilistic confirmation. You can think of it like a well-organized rhythm where a block is proposed, checked, voted on, and moved through clear states toward final acceptance, and while the underlying mechanics are complex, the emotional outcome is simple: participants want to know when something is settled, and they want the system to keep working even when the network is under pressure. That’s why you’ll see features in this kind of consensus design that handle timeouts and edge cases, because real-world infrastructure must handle bad days without falling apart, and regulated finance will not tolerate a chain that only behaves nicely in perfect conditions.

Networking is another place where Dusk’s “infrastructure first” mindset shows up, because blockchains don’t fail only through clever cryptographic attacks, they also fail through ordinary propagation problems, bandwidth stress, and message delays that quietly create forks and confusion. Dusk uses a structured broadcast approach rather than relying purely on casual gossip patterns, because in faster finality settings, the speed and reliability of how blocks and votes spread can decide whether the chain feels stable or chaotic. When people talk about “throughput,” they usually picture transactions per second, but the more important picture for a financial chain is whether information moves cleanly, whether committees can coordinate, whether votes arrive in time, and whether block propagation is efficient enough to reduce stale blocks. We’re seeing more mature chains take networking seriously as a security boundary, and Dusk placing it as a core engineered component fits the broader idea that trust is built from the bottom up, not painted on after the fact.

On top of settlement, Dusk opens the door for different kinds of smart contract execution, and this is where builders start to care, because it shapes what tools they can use and how quickly they can ship. One path is a WebAssembly-based environment, designed around running contracts compiled to WASM with a defined interface for how contracts receive inputs and interact, and the other path is an EVM-style environment meant to feel familiar to developers who already understand Ethereum tooling. The EVM route is especially important emotionally, because it lowers fear for teams who don’t want to learn an entirely new world just to test an idea, yet Dusk still anchors settlement into its own base layer, so the chain isn’t simply borrowing identity from somewhere else, it’s using familiarity as a bridge into its own ecosystem. This dual approach is also a quiet admission that adoption is not only about better technology, it’s about reducing switching costs, and if developers can bring their habits and tools with them, they’re more likely to experiment, and experimentation is how ecosystems become real.

If you zoom in on the EVM execution route, the flow often looks more like a rollup-style pattern where a sequencer orders transactions and publishes batches and state updates down to the settlement layer, and this is where technical choices start to matter in ways regular users can actually feel. For example, if there is no public mempool and the sequencer is the main party that sees incoming transactions first, that changes how transaction visibility works, how certain trading behaviors play out, and what kinds of censorship or prioritization risks exist until decentralization deepens. There are also settlement timing realities that come from inherited design choices in rollup stacks, where some safety windows can be long today while the roadmap aims for much faster settlement later, and the most honest way to view this is not as a flaw or a miracle, but as an evolving engineering tradeoff where the system can launch with proven components and then tighten finality and decentralization over time. The important thing is not to pretend these tradeoffs don’t exist, but to watch how quickly they shrink as the project matures, because in regulated settings, “we’ll fix it later” has to become “we fixed it,” and that’s when trust upgrades from hope into confidence.

All of this privacy and execution flexibility would be pointless if the cryptography was sloppy or chosen only for marketing, and Dusk’s stack leans into proof-friendly primitives and verification efficiency because privacy must be practical, not ceremonial. The cryptographic toolkit includes primitives that are widely used in modern zero-knowledge systems and signature aggregation designs, and the runtime is built to make heavy verification work feasible for nodes, because proving and verifying are where privacy systems can become expensive if they aren’t engineered carefully. This is one of those places where you can almost feel the project’s intention: they’re trying to make privacy something you can use every day without paying a painful premium, and at the same time they’re trying to keep verification robust enough that the system doesn’t depend on trust in a small group of insiders. In other words, they’re pushing toward a world where privacy is normal, proof is normal, and compliance-friendly disclosure is possible without turning users into public exhibits.

When people talk about “regulated finance on-chain,” tokenized real-world assets are usually the headline, but the reality is deeper than minting a token, because securities have lifecycles, corporate actions, redemptions, dividends, constraints, and sometimes even forced transfers driven by legal orders, and those are the parts that break naive DeFi designs. Dusk’s direction includes building systems meant to manage these realities in a way that still respects privacy, meaning the chain isn’t only trying to hide transfers, it’s trying to support financial instruments in a legally meaningful way while keeping the end users from being exposed unnecessarily. That goal naturally connects to identity and credentials, because regulated environments often require participants to prove eligibility, and the best version of this future is not one where everyone doxxes themselves to the entire chain, but one where you can prove what matters without oversharing the rest. If it becomes common that on-chain markets require credentials, then privacy-preserving identity becomes the bridge between compliance and human dignity, and Dusk’s broader stack leaves room for that world.

Now let’s talk about what people should actually watch if they want to judge Dusk as a living system instead of a story. I’m not going to pretend that charts and social hype are useless, but they’re not the foundation of financial infrastructure, so the strongest signals are the boring ones that show whether the chain is delivering on its promises. We’re seeing that the health of a proof-of-stake network is deeply tied to who is staking, how stake is distributed, how many active participants are consistently producing and attesting to blocks, and whether that participation is resilient under stress, because decentralization is not a label, it’s a measurable shape. On the privacy side, it matters how often the private transaction model is used in real applications, because a chain can claim privacy forever, but if most activity stays transparent due to cost, complexity, or poor tooling, then the promise isn’t landing where it counts. It also matters what finality looks like in practice, not only in ideal conditions, because settlement predictability is what regulated users will remember, and if there are frequent delays, reorganizations, or bottlenecks, that becomes a psychological tax that serious markets refuse to pay. And on the execution side, especially where sequencers and rollup-style flows exist, it matters how quickly the system moves toward greater decentralization, shorter settlement windows, and clearer transparency around ordering behavior, because those details shape user trust in a way that a marketing paragraph never can.

Token economics also matters, not because it guarantees success, but because it silently decides whether security is sustainable, and Dusk’s supply and emissions design is built around rewarding network participants over time while supporting fee payment and staking behavior. The most important way to read tokenomics in a project like this is not as a promise of wealth, but as a question of long-term alignment: are validators and provisioners incentivized to behave honestly, are rewards structured so participation stays healthy as the network grows, are fees and emissions balanced in a way that doesn’t turn the system into short-term extraction, and does the economic model allow the chain to remain secure without relying on constant hype. If you’re watching from the outside, it’s wise to track circulating supply changes, staking participation, reward behavior, and fee trends, because those are the metrics that reveal whether the system can hold itself up.

And yes, there are real risks, and it’s better to say them calmly than to hide them behind excitement. The first risk is complexity, because privacy systems, multiple execution environments, and modular architectures create many moving parts, and more moving parts mean more places for bugs, misconfigurations, or economic incentive problems to appear, so security culture has to be continuous rather than occasional. Another risk is adoption timing, because regulated markets move carefully, and even if the technology is strong, institutions don’t flip a switch overnight, so the project has to survive long enough to meet them where they are, and that requires discipline and focus when the rest of the industry chases faster stories. There’s also the risk of misunderstanding, because privacy can be framed unfairly as something suspicious, and the project’s success depends partly on proving, through real implementations, that privacy and compliance are not enemies, they’re partners, where selective disclosure and proof-based auditability can satisfy rules without sacrificing ordinary confidentiality. Finally, there’s the risk that execution-layer tradeoffs, like sequencer-centered flows, become a trust bottleneck unless decentralization and stronger settlement improvements arrive in practice, because in markets, trust is not granted, it is earned repeatedly.

Still, when I look at what Dusk is trying to do, the direction feels meaningful because it’s anchored in how the real world actually works, not how we wish it worked. Finance needs confidentiality, compliance needs verifiability, users need dignity, and institutions need predictable settlement, and Dusk is attempting to build a chain where those needs don’t cancel each other out. We’re seeing the broader industry slowly accept that “everything public forever” is not a universal answer, and we’re also seeing that “privacy with no accountability” doesn’t fit regulated reality, so the path forward belongs to systems that can prove correctness while protecting sensitive details by default. If it becomes true that the next wave of adoption is driven by tokenized assets, compliant DeFi, and institutional-grade applications, then the chains that win won’t just be loud, they’ll be reliable, and reliability often looks like careful engineering, audits, conservative choices, and a long patience that doesn’t panic when progress is slow.

I’m not saying Dusk’s future is guaranteed, because nothing in this space is, but I am saying the vision is grounded in a real need, and real needs have a way of pulling good systems forward even when the journey feels quiet. They’re building for a world where privacy is not a loophole, it’s a human baseline, and where auditability is not surveillance, it’s responsible proof, and if they keep tightening the system step by step, keeping incentives aligned, improving finality and decentralization, and making privacy usable rather than intimidating, then the most powerful outcome is not a headline moment, it’s the steady feeling that on-chain finance can finally grow up without losing its soul.
#Dusk

@Plasma $XPL
Nadal pamiętam pierwszy raz, kiedy próbowałem przenieść cyfrowe dolary za granice i poczułem ukłucie w klatce piersiowej, nie dlatego, że technologia zawiodła, ale dlatego, że doświadczenie wydawało się niesprawiedliwe, jakby system cicho opodatkowywał ludzi, którzy najmniej mogą sobie pozwolić na opóźnienia i opłaty. Stablecoiny obiecywały coś prostego i ludzkiego, dolara, który może podróżować tak szybko jak informacja, a jednak tak wiele sieci wciąż zmusza cię do skakania przez obręcze, kupowania osobnego tokena gazu, czekania dłużej niż się spodziewałeś i płacenia kosztów, które wydają się absurdalne, gdy próbujesz wysłać małą kwotę. Widzimy, jak stablecoiny stają się codziennym narzędziem do oszczędzania, płacenia i przesyłania wartości w miejscach, gdzie lokalna waluta traci zaufanie lub bankowość jest trudna, i to właśnie dlatego tory rozliczeniowe mają znaczenie. Plasma XPL pochodzi z tej emocjonalnej prawdy, przekonania, że pieniądze powinny łatwo się poruszać, oraz wyboru projektowego, że stablecoiny nie powinny być traktowane jak dodatkowa funkcja, ale jak główny powód istnienia łańcucha.

\u003cm-53/\u003e\u003cc-54/\u003e
Kiedy ludzie mówią o blockchainie, często brzmi to jak dwa światy kłócące się ze sobą, jedna strona chce całkowitej przejrzystości, gdzie każda transakcja może być śledzona przez każdego na zawsze, a druga strona pragnie głębokiej prywatności, gdzie nic nie może być widoczne ani udowodnione, a w rzeczywistych finansach oba skrajności tworzą problemy, które nigdy do końca nie znikają. Fundacja Dusk powstała z tej niewygodnej prawdy, ponieważ w momencie, gdy pieniądz staje się poważny, jak papiery wartościowe, aktywa z rzeczywistego świata i regulowane rynki, prywatność przestaje być luksusem i staje się podstawowym wymogiem, podczas gdy zgodność przestaje być dobrowolna i staje się regułą. Patrzę na Dusk jako projekt, który próbuje utrzymać obie rzeczywistości w tych samych rękach, budując warstwę 1 zaprojektowaną dla instytucji i codziennych użytkowników, którzy chcą poufności, ale również potrzebują audytowalności, gdy prawo tego wymaga, a ta równowaga to miejsce, gdzie zaczyna się prawdziwa historia.