dusk

Dusk is revolutionizing privacy-focused blockchain solutions. With @Dusk leading innovation, $DUSK empowers users with scalable, secure, and decentralized finance tools. The network supports smart contracts, tokenization, and confidential transactions while maintaining efficiency and privacy. As blockchain adoption grows, Dusk’s technology ensures both developers and users can operate with confidence. #dusk is not just a token, it’s a movement toward a safer, decentralized future. Learn more about its vision and ecosystem.

@Dusk Most DeFi protocols did not begin with a theory of financial stability. They began with a question of composability: how quickly capital could move, how easily it could be rehypothecated, and how much yield could be extracted from it. The result has been a system that is impressive in throughput but fragile in stress. Forced selling cascades, liquidity that vanishes when it is most needed, incentives that reward short-term extraction over long-term solvency, and balance sheets that are efficient only in calm conditions. Dusk exists because these problems are not surface-level bugs; they are structural outcomes of how most DeFi systems are designed.

At the core of DeFi’s instability is the way liquidity is treated as a speculative asset rather than a financial utility. Liquidity is incentivized through emissions, attracts capital temporarily, and exits as soon as relative returns decline. This creates a system where markets look deep during expansion and hollow during contraction. When prices move against leverage, liquidation engines are forced to sell into thinning order books, amplifying volatility and transferring losses from borrowers to the system itself. These are not failures of risk parameters alone; they are failures of incentive alignment. Dusk approaches this problem from the opposite direction, asking how liquidity can be structured to persist through cycles rather than chase peaks.

Privacy, in this context, is not about secrecy for its own sake. It is about reducing adverse selection and reflexive behavior. In transparent-by-default systems, large positions broadcast their vulnerabilities. Liquidators, arbitrageurs, and MEV strategies coordinate implicitly around public information, turning individual balance sheets into collective targets. This accelerates forced selling and increases the cost of risk management for anyone operating at institutional scale. Dusk’s privacy model exists to change this dynamic. By limiting what the market can see in real time, it dampens predatory behavior and allows positions to be managed based on fundamentals rather than exposure anxiety. The trade-off is reduced instantaneous transparency, but the benefit is a more stable environment for long-horizon capital.

Auditability is often framed as incompatible with privacy, yet financial markets have long operated with delayed disclosure, selective reporting, and regulated access. Dusk adopts a similar posture. The system is designed so that compliance and verification are possible without turning every position into a live signal for extraction. This matters for regulated institutions, but it also matters for the health of the market itself. When participants are not forced to reveal their entire balance sheet at all times, they are less likely to over-collateralize defensively or unwind positions prematurely. Capital efficiency, in this sense, is not about maximizing leverage but about minimizing unnecessary deleveraging.

Borrowing in most DeFi systems is framed as a way to increase exposure. The dominant use case is to lever longs, chase yields, or rotate collateral into ever more complex strategies. This behavior concentrates risk and ties the health of the protocol to sustained price appreciation. Dusk instead treats borrowing as a balance sheet tool. The emphasis is on preserving ownership, smoothing cash flows, and managing liquidity without liquidation pressure. When borrowing is used to avoid selling productive assets rather than to speculate on price, the entire risk profile of the system changes. Liquidations become a last resort rather than a core mechanism.

Stablecoins play a similar role. In many DeFi environments, stablecoins are the fuel for yield loops, farming strategies, and short-term arbitrage. Their demand is cyclical and tightly coupled to speculative activity. Dusk frames stablecoins as settlement instruments and accounting units, closer to how they are used in traditional finance. This reduces velocity but increases reliability. Capital parked in stablecoins is not assumed to be “working” at all times; it is assumed to be available when needed. The opportunity cost is lower headline yields, but the payoff is resilience during stress, when optionality is more valuable than marginal return.

One of the most overlooked sources of inefficiency in DeFi is forced selling driven by rigid liquidation logic. Fixed thresholds and public triggers create cliffs rather than gradients. Once breached, positions are unwound mechanically, regardless of broader market context. Dusk’s design choices aim to soften these cliffs by aligning liquidation processes with economic intent rather than technical necessity. This does not eliminate risk, nor does it promise immunity from loss. It acknowledges that risk exists and seeks to manage how it is realized. Losses absorbed gradually are less destructive than losses realized explosively.

Short-term incentives remain the hardest problem to solve. Token emissions, governance rewards, and liquidity mining have trained participants to optimize for immediate return, often at the expense of protocol health. Dusk is conservative here by design. Growth is slower, participation is more deliberate, and capital is expected to behave more like balance sheet capital than mercenary liquidity. This is not an attempt to outcompete high-yield environments on their own terms. It is a recognition that sustainable financial infrastructure rarely grows fastest in its earliest stages.

There are clear trade-offs in this approach. Privacy can reduce composability. Conservative risk parameters can limit leverage-driven growth. Lower visible yields can deter speculative capital. These are not oversights; they are choices. Dusk is not optimized for rapid TVL accumulation or narrative dominance. It is optimized for scenarios where capital cares about survivability, compliance, and predictability. In those scenarios, the cost of instability far outweighs the benefits of aggressive expansion.

Yield, when it appears, is a consequence rather than a goal. It emerges from productive use of capital, from reduced loss rates, and from systems that do not need to overpay for participation. This is a quieter form of return, less visible in dashboards and more evident over long horizons. It requires patience and a willingness to value avoided losses as much as realized gains.

Dusk’s relevance, therefore, is not tied to market cycles or narrative shifts. It rests on whether DeFi matures into an ecosystem where capital seeks durability over excitement. If decentralized finance is to support real economic activity, regulated institutions, and long-lived assets, it will need infrastructure that accepts trade-offs in exchange for stability. Dusk exists for that future, whether it arrives quickly or slowly.

@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

这两天的行情，只能用四个字形容：血流成河
打开账户全是绿光（跌），BTC 一度插针到 77,000 以下，很多人的现货资产一夜之间缩水 30%-50%
甚至有群友自嘲：“本来想抄底，结果抄在了半山腰，现在只想把软件卸载了装死。”
但兄弟们，越是这种至暗时刻，越不能装死
跌市才是洗牌期
这时候还在交易所盯着K线只会让你焦虑，真正的 alpha 都在链上——用最低的成本（甚至0撸），去博取下一个周期的筹码

今天不谈行情，只谈两个“回血自救”的操作：一个是当下的现金流（Alpha空投），一个是未来的避风港@Dusk
如果你还没做 Alpha 任务，现在立刻去。这是目前为数不多“几乎无视行情涨跌”的确定性机会
暴跌之后买什么？我想聊聊 @Dusk
为什么在大盘崩盘的时候，我反而要提 #dusk

因为这次大跌再次证明了一件事：纯情绪炒作的 Meme 和空气币，在恐慌面前一文不值。 只有真正接入传统金融、有造血能力的基建，才能活过寒冬。
这次大跌，圈外资金（ETF、机构）跑得比谁都快，为什么？因为他们觉得链上不安全、不合规。
$DUSK 利用 ZK技术，完美解决了机构的痛点：既保护交易隐私（不暴露底牌），又符合监管审计（合规合法）
这就是为下一波机构大资金进场准备的铺路石
删掉交易所 App，别看余额徒增烦恼

左手刷 Alpha 空投赚生活费，右手研究 $DUSK 埋伏下一轮爆发
只要还在场上，就有翻身的机会。

哥们儿，今天圈子里都在传一张截图：高盛某个核心交易部门，昨天下午系统“故障”了半小时。你知道后来怎么着？内部流出的消息说，那根本不是故障，是他们在测试一个叫 Dusk 的链上结算系统，处理的是一笔真实的私募股权交易。对，就是那个一直闷头搞“可编程隐私”的 Dusk。

这事情妙就妙在，它捅破了一层窗户纸——传统机构不是不想上链，是怕链上的光太刺眼，把自己照得一丝不挂。Dusk 给的恰恰是一间暗室：你可以关起门来操作，但墙上留了个监管能看的猫眼。说白了，Dusk 不是另一条追求速度的公链，它从一开始就瞄准了金融最痒的那个痛点：如何在阳光下干点隐秘的事？答案藏在它的零知识证明架构里，能让交易细节像隐形了一样流动，而审计轨迹却锁在合规机构手里。

你可能会问，这跟其他隐私链有啥不同？Dusk 狠就狠在，它把隐私做成了可编程的底层协议。这意味着，机构能在上面自定义规则：哪些数据对谁可见、何时可见。想象一下，一个债券发行方可以在 Dusk 上向特定投资者披露风险敞口，同时对外界只显示加密后的哈希值——这种精细控制，正是华尔街老钱们梦寐以求的“数字屏障”。

随着 DuskEVM 主网上线，这些功能不再是纸面蓝图。已经有几家欧洲的资管公司在悄悄搭建私有资产池，他们看中的正是 Dusk 那种“低调的合规性”。毕竟，在监管铁拳越来越重的今天，能同时满足隐私和审计的链，一只手数得过来。而 Dusk 靠的可不是营销口号，是实打实让机构敢把真资产搬上来的技术底气。

所以，下次再听到谁说 RWA 遇冷是因为监管没放开，你可以笑笑——工具没到位，谁敢亮家底？Dusk 正在做的，就是给万亿级资金铺那条唯一的暗桥。等到桥上挤满人的那天，你才会发现，闷声干活的基建党，往往才是最后的庄家。
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

Dusk Network is not another blockchain. It is one of the ones out there. This is especially true now in 2026. Dusk Network is doing something cool with real-world assets. They are making it possible to turn these assets into tokens. This is a deal because it makes finance work better with rules and laws. Dusk Network is really good at this. They are one of the leaders, in this area. Dusk Network is doing a job with this.
Here is what really sets Dusk apart: Dusk does not go all the way with total anonymity like some privacy coins and Dusk does not make everything public either. Instead Dusk focuses on privacy for $DUSK . The whole idea of Dusk from the start was to help markets and institutions such as people who need to follow all the rules of MiCA and MiFID II but who also need to keep sensitive business information private, for Dusk. That’s the balance Dusk strikes, and honestly, not many projects do it like this.
The Heart of Dusk — Segregated Byzantine Agreement (SBA)
Dusk uses something called Segregated Byzantine Agreement or SBA for short. Dusks Segregated Byzantine Agreement is their version of Proof-of-Stake. The Segregated Byzantine Agreement that Dusk uses goes for something called finality. This means that once a few steps are taken with Dusks Segregated Byzantine Agreement you can be very sure that the chain will not fork. Dusks Segregated Byzantine Agreement is an improvement, over the usual Proof-of-Stake approach. The usual Proof-of-Stake approach always leaves some doubt. Dusks Segregated Byzantine Agreement does not.
SBA splits people into two groups, and it keeps them strictly apart. First, you’ve got the Generators. They’re the ones who come up with new blocks—think of them as the leaders or proposers you see in classic BFT systems. Then there are the Provisioners. Their job is to check and finalize those blocks, just like voters or attesters.
Dusk does a job of keeping things safe by separating these roles. This really cuts down the ways that bad people might try to mess with the system. You see, of having one big group that does all the work Dusk has two separate teams, each with their own task. Dusk makes the system safer by doing this. The two teams that Dusk has are each responsible, for their job.
Now picking a leader is where things get really interesting. The Dusk method uses something called Proof-of-Blind Bid or PoBB for short. I think Dusks Proof-of-Blind Bid is one of the ways to choose a leader. It is also very good, for keeping things private. I really like the way Dusks Proof-of-Blind Bid works.
Here is the basic idea of how PoBB works:
Each participant sends in a bid that includes a things:
A Pedersen-style commitment is, like a promise that shows how stake they are putting in. This is made up of a number, which we will call v and a blinding factor, which we will call b. These two things are combined into something called c, which is calculated using the formula c = C(v, b). The Pedersen-style commitment is important because it helps to keep the stake private. The number v and the blinding factor b are used to create the commitment c.
A Poseidon hash of a secret (just, secretHash = H(secret))The secret code itself which is connected to their address the stealth address is what we are talking about the encrypted secret itself and the stealth address.The heights at which the bid is valid and the heights, at the bid expiration timeTheir stealth address, which is a pair (R, pk)
All these bids get put into something called a Merkle tree, which is also known as the bidTree. This is where the bidTree really does its thing, with all the bids. The bidTree is pretty important because it handles all the bids.

Here’s how it works. For each round and step, if you know the opening (that’s v and b) and the secret, you can figure out your score on your own. If your score hits or beats a certain threshold—which changes every epoch, depending on λ, the expected number of leaders per slot—you’re a leader for that slot.
When that happens you say loud your score, your seed and a Plonk proof. The Plonk proof is, like a math score. It shows that you did the math correctly. You are not telling anyone your secret number v or the secret itself. You are showing that you have a Plonk proof. We can also call the Plonk proof the π_score. The π_score proves that you did the math right. You are using the Plonk proof to show that you did the math correctly with your score and your seed and the Plonk proof.
This whole process is really simple. The process does what the process has to do without anyone telling the process what to do. The process is based on stake weights. One thing, about the process is that it is very hard to guess what is going to happen with the process. Nobody gets to know the secret of the process until the end when the secret of the process is finally revealed. The process also uses something called zero-knowledge proofs to help the process.
The bidding process is private. Nobody knows what anyone else is bidding on. This is the case unless the person who is bidding the bidder actually wins the auction. Then the bidder has to prove that they won the bidding process for the auction. This means the bidder has to show that they really did win the auction. The bidding process is private. That is why nobody knows what anyone else is bidding on for the auction.
If someone has than a third of the control in the system and they try to be in charge of everything like always being the leader or stopping others they will not get what they want.
The system is made so that this person cannot win.
This is true even before people start making decisions.
The person with than a third of the control in the system will fail because the system is made to stop this kind of thing from happening.
The system is designed to prevent the person with, than a third of the control from getting what they want.
Now, about finality—how blocks get confirmed for good. After someone proposes a block, there’s a two-step Reduction phase (borrowed from TABA84 but with some key differences), then an Agreement phase that runs asynchronously.
Reduction is a way to take a lot of results and turn them into a simple decision that is either yes or no. This is called an agreement. It uses something called BLS threshold signatures to make this decision.
When you use reduction the people, in charge called provisioners are divided into groups. These groups are formed in a way using VRF sortition.
To vote you need a lot of people to agree, more, than two-thirds of the committees stake. If the committee does not get votes on time the committee will move to the next step or the committee will run out of time.
The whitepaper explains the math in terms: as long as more than two thirds of the people who have a stake in each role are honest the chance of a problem with the system like a fork is very low. This is the case when you look at a round from the moment a block is proposed to the end when it goes through two reduction steps and an agreement. The chance of a fork drops low often lower, than 2 to the power of negative 40. This depends on how big the committee's what λ is. The whitepaper is talking about the whitepaper and the math it presents the math related to the whitepaper.
That’s statistical finality. It’s stronger than theThe thing about proof-of-stake chains is that they have a finality that is based on probability. This means that proof-of-stake chains have a kind of finality. But with this probabilistic finality proof-of-stake chains are still open to everyone so they stay permissionless. This is a deal, for proof-of-stake chains because it means that anyone can use them.
Privacy-Preserving Transactions — Phoenix & Zedger
When it gets dark Dusk brings two ways of doing business to the table and these two transaction models really work well with each other the Dusk transaction models are a team.
Phoenix is built on a system that uses something called UTXO. This system uses proofs called zero-knowledge proofs to keep your transfers private.
You can move your assets between modes. Some are transparent some are hidden and some are completely secret.
The Phoenix system uses things like Schnorr proofs and commitments and nullifiers to keep your transactions private.
This means that it hides the links between your transactions it protects how money you have and it stops people from spending the same money twice.
What is really cool about Phoenix is that you can use the money you get from things, like staking rewards without having to tell everyone about it.
Most systems that use zero-knowledge proofs cannot do this.
Phoenix and its use of zero-knowledge proofs is what makes it special.
Zedger is a system. It is also known as Hedger in some new documents. The Zedger system combines two ways of doing things: the UTXO model and the account-based model. This is mostly used for security tokens.
The Zedger system uses something called a Sparse Merkle Segment Tree, which's a way to keep track of multiple balances for each segment. This includes things like the balance the transactional balance, the voting balance and the dividend balance.
Zedger makes sure that all the rules are followed, like one account per user and it has a list of approved users. It also makes sure that the people receiving something have approved it and it keeps a record of all the balances. Zedger even tracks the lifecycle of something.
The Zedger system can also handle something called Confidential Security Contracts, which are also known as XSC. This means that Zedger can handle securities that can be programmed. The Zedger system is very useful, for security tokens. It helps to keep everything private and secure.
When you put these things together you can move bonds and equities and funds around in a private way. At the time people, like regulators or auditors can still look at things when they need to check on tokenized bonds and equities and funds.
There’s more under the hood, too.
Rusk VM is a WebAssembly-based virtual machine that’s gas-metered and plays nicely with zero-knowledge proofs. Kadcast handles efficient message spreading with its structured gossip overlay. And native Genesis Contracts take care of core features like staking, rewards, slashing, DUSK transfers, and moving assets between transparent and shielded layers.
2025–2026 Milestones & Why It Matters Now
The mainnet goes live in early 2025, wrapping up almost six years of research and development. That’s a huge stretch—one of the longest, most intentional builds you’ll find for any Layer-1 project.
Here’s what’s on deck for 2025 and 2026:
DuskEVM launches, and it’s Solidity-compatible, so you can bring over Ethereum tools without the usual headaches.
Zedger rolls out completely, opening the door for institutions to issue real-world assets.
They’re teaming up with regulated venues like NPEX and 21X.
$DUSK holders get hyperstaking rewards.
They’re building MiCA-aligned infrastructure, which means on-chain trading of real, regulated securities is actually happening.
Thing is, regulators want KYC, AML, audits, and transparency. Traders and issuers? They want privacy—nobody wants their strategy or holdings out in the open. Dusk’s approach strikes a rare balance. You get compliance where it counts, but you don’t have to give up confidentiality.
If you care about real RWA infrastructure, or you’re serious about privacy-first, regulated DeFi, Dusk is worth a long, hard look.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation