In this article, I only look at @dusk_foundation's token and network security design, because for a chain that is 'to carry regulated transactions', security and incentive structure itself is part of the product, not a subsidiary condition.
Dusk's network security is not based on computing power, nor on high inflation piling up the number of nodes, but is designed around the responsibility of validators. Validators participate in consensus, block confirmation, and state validation, essentially undertaking 'financial-grade confirmation responsibility', rather than simply packaging transactions. This is different from many application-oriented public chains, because once securities or regulated assets are running on-chain, the cost of state errors will be infinitely amplified.
$DUSK 's role in this system is very clear: staking is not for the sake of profit itself, but as an economic constraint for participating in consensus and validation. Validators need to lock up tokens for a long time in order to receive block rewards and transaction fee sharing; once malicious behavior or violation of protocol rules occurs, staking faces the risk of punishment. This structure determines that network security relies on 'long-term behavioral consistency', rather than short-term computing power or short-term games.
From the perspective of the economic model, Dusk binds the release of tokens more to network usage and security maintenance, rather than stimulating superficial activity through high inflation. This is not friendly to prices in the short term, but is necessary for a 'financial system that needs stable operation'. Because if the incentives are too short-term, nodes are more likely to engage in behaviors that damage the system's long-term credibility, which is absolutely unacceptable for regulated transactions.
The reason I bring this point up separately is that many people discuss Dusk only looking at the technology, but ignore a practical issue: without sufficiently strong economic constraints, even the best compliance design is merely paper rules. Dusk embeds tokens directly into security and validation responsibilities, meaning that the value of $$DUSK is highly tied to whether the network is being used seriously, rather than existing independently based on narrative.
So now when I look at $DUSK, I won't judge it by 'how high inflation is' or 'how appealing the rewards are', but rather by whether the validator structure is stable, whether staking is long-term, and whether the network can maintain secure operation without emotional drivers. For a chain that is to carry compliant transactions, these are more important than any promotion.
