I used to think transaction finality was basically binary: confirmed or not confirmed.

Looking at @Dusk made me reconsider that assumption.

A transaction can move through four distinct states: Accepted, Confirmed, Stable, and finally Final.

Accepted means it has entered the chain. Confirmed means more blocks have built around it. Stable signals deeper settlement confidence. Final is the point where cryptographic finality is reached and reversal is no longer possible.

What I find interesting is the information this progression gives users.

Instead of treating every transaction as equally settled, Dusk exposes how confidence develops over time.

That makes “finality” less like a switch and more like a measurable journey.

The question I’d ask is:

Could this staged model make settlement risk easier to understand in real-world financial applications?
$PROM
$CATI
$DUSK
#dusk @Dusk
What matters most when judging a transaction’s finality?