Mr_Green个

People talk about stablecoins like they are just another crypto token. But most people do not use them that way. They use them like money. They save in them. They send them to family. They pay freelancers. They move funds between businesses. They do it because it feels like a digital dollar that travels fast.
Then the friction shows up. A user wants to send USD₮. The wallet asks for gas. The gas is not USD₮. It is a separate token. The user has none. The payment stops before it starts. Even when the user has gas, the network can feel slow. It can feel unpredictable. Fees can jump. Transactions can fail. This is fine for some crypto activity. It is bad for payments.
This is the reason people started asking a new question. What if stablecoins need their own chain. Not a chain that treats stablecoins as “one of many assets.” A chain that treats stablecoins as the main job. That is the idea behind Plasma.

Plasma describes itself as a Layer 1 built for global stablecoin payments. It is not shy about the focus. It says it is purpose-built for stablecoin settlement and payment apps. It also says it is fully EVM compatible. That matters because it keeps the door open for builders. They can use the same Ethereum tools and the same smart contract patterns. Plasma points to tools like Hardhat and Foundry, and wallets like MetaMask, as part of the normal flow.
So Plasma is not trying to replace the EVM world. It is trying to give the EVM world a chain that behaves like a payment network. Binance Research frames Plasma in the same way. It calls Plasma a high-performance, EVM-compatible Layer 1 built for stablecoins. It highlights the big frictions Plasma wants to remove. It lists fees, failed transactions, latency, and rough UX. It also lists Plasma’s key features. Those include zero-fee USD₮ transfers, stablecoin-first gas, sub-second finality through PlasmaBFT, and Bitcoin-anchored security.
This is where the “own chain” argument becomes real. Stablecoins do not only need smart contracts. They need reliability. They need fast finality. They need a simple fee model. They need a path for mainstream users who never want to learn what “gas” is.
Plasma’s approach starts with speed and finality. In payments, waiting feels risky. Merchants do not love waiting. Users do not love waiting. Finality is the moment you can treat a transfer as done. Plasma uses a consensus model called PlasmaBFT. Binance Academy explains that PlasmaBFT provides fast finality and supports high throughput for payment-focused apps. This is not only a technical goal. It is a product goal. It is the difference between “I think it worked” and “it worked.”
Then Plasma tackles the gas problem. For beginners, gas is confusing. It is also a source of failure. Plasma’s story is simple. If you are sending stablecoins, the experience should feel stablecoin-native. Binance Research describes “stablecoin-first gas” as part of Plasma’s design. It says fees can be paid in USD₮ or BTC via an auto-swap mechanism. That is a big deal for onboarding. It reduces the need to buy a separate gas token before you can do anything.

Plasma goes further with the idea of gasless transfers. “Gasless” can sound like magic. It is not magic. It is a sponsorship model. Plasma’s own documentation explains it in plain terms. It says Plasma enables gasless stablecoin payments using an API-managed relayer system for USD₮. It says the system is tightly scoped. It sponsors only direct USD₮ transfers. It also says it uses identity-aware controls to prevent abuse.
Think about what that changes for a normal user. A user can receive USD₮ and send USD₮. They do not need to first buy XPL just to move money. They do not need to understand gas routing. They just send. That is closer to how payment apps work today.
For developers, the same feature becomes a clean product tool. Plasma’s doc is written for teams that want to integrate the Plasma Relayer API for gasless USDT0 transfers. That means a wallet app or a fintech app can build a “send USD₮” flow that feels smooth. It can still be onchain. It can still be verifiable. The gas cost is handled by the sponsor path.
Plasma also keeps the builder story simple in another way. It stays EVM-compatible. Binance Academy states that Plasma is EVM-compatible and supports deploying Ethereum-based smart contracts with minimal effort. It also notes the execution side is built to support payment needs. Coingecko also summarizes Plasma’s execution layer as built on Reth, which supports Ethereum compatibility and contract reuse. This matters because payment apps need more than transfers. They need contracts for escrow. They need subscriptions. They need invoices. They need merchant logic. They need onchain settlement logic that can plug into offchain accounting.
There is also a trust and neutrality story. Payments are not only about speed. They are also about who can block you. Plasma positions “Bitcoin-anchored security” as part of the design. Binance Research includes it as a core feature, and ties it to neutrality and censorship resistance. For many readers, that matters because stablecoins are used globally. They are used in places where access can be fragile. A payment rail that aims to be neutral is a strong narrative.
Plasma also talks about extra stablecoin-native features beyond fees. Binance Academy mentions support for custom gas tokens and a native Bitcoin bridge. Bitfinex’s explainer adds two more points. It repeats the focus on stablecoin payments. It also mentions confidential transactions as part of Plasma’s design goals. This points to a broader theme. Payments often need privacy. Businesses do not want every vendor payment to be public. Users do not want every transaction to be a billboard. Privacy features can be legitimate payment features when designed responsibly.
Now let’s talk about the token for a moment, because beginners will see “XPL” and ask why it exists. In a stablecoin-first chain, the stablecoin is the money users move. The native token is often about security and network incentives. Plasma’s docs lay out XPL tokenomics clearly. The initial supply at mainnet beta is 10 billion XPL. Ecosystem and Growth gets 40%, and 8% unlocks at mainnet beta for launch needs like incentives and integrations. CoinDesk also reported this structure and repeated the 10 billion total supply and the large ecosystem allocation. This helps explain how Plasma plans to fund the early push for liquidity and apps, which is critical for any payments network.
So why do stablecoins “need” their own Layer 1. The honest answer is that they do not need it in theory. They can run on many chains. But at global scale, details become the product. A chain built for many use cases can still be great. Yet stablecoins have a special demand pattern. They need low friction for the smallest transfers. They need finality that feels instant. They need a fee experience that feels like money, not like a game.
Plasma’s bet is that specializing is worth it. It wants a chain where stablecoins are first-class. It wants a chain where sending USD₮ can be zero-fee in a controlled way. It wants a chain where fees can be paid in stablecoins. It wants a chain where developers can still use EVM tools. And it wants a chain that leans on Bitcoin’s neutrality story for added trust.
If Plasma succeeds, the change will feel boring in the best way. A stablecoin transfer will feel like sending a message. A merchant will not worry about waiting. A new user will not get stuck at “insufficient gas.” A developer will not need a new language. They will build a payments app with the same EVM foundation, but with a payment-first chain under it.
@Plasma
#plasma
#Plasma
$XPL

ক্রিপ্টো মার্কেটে আসার আগে আমি অনেক পেশার সাথেই জড়িয়ে ছিলাম। কখনো বিজনেস করেছি, কখনো করেছি শিক্ষকতা, কখনো বা অনলাইনে ফ্রি-ল্যান্সিং। সব কিছুইতেই ছিলো খুবই সীমিত ইনকাম। এরপর আমি বাইনেন্স এর সম্পর্কে পুরোপুরি জানতে পারি, আর বাইনেন্স নিয়ে ঘাটাঘাটি শুরু করি।
শুরুতে শুধুমাত্র ট্রেড নিয়ে জেনেছি, কিভাবে ট্রেড নিতে হয়, কোথায় ট্রেড নিতে হয়- এগুলোই শুধুমাত্র শিখেছিলাম।
কিন্তু একদিন হঠাৎ স্ক্রল করতে করতে আমি বাইনেন্স স্কয়ার দেখতে পাই। সেখানে কিছু লাইভ আসে, লাইভে প্রবেশ করে দেখি সবাই ক্রিপ্টো নিয়ে বিস্তারিত আলোচনা করছে। সেই আলোচনার একজন মনোযোগী শ্রোতা হিসেবেই আমার বাইনেন্স স্কয়ারের যাত্রা শুরু।
ধীরে ধীরে আমি নিজেও গ্রো করতে শুরু করি, সবার থেকে জ্ঞান নিয়ে, নিজের জ্ঞানকে বৃদ্ধি করতে থাকি আর নিজেও কিছু কিছু জ্ঞান বিতরন শুরু করি। এভাবেই শুরু আমার স্কয়ার পোস্টের যাত্রা।
এরপর, ক্রিয়েটর প্যাড নিয়ে বিস্তারিত ধারণা পাই, আস্তে আস্তে শুরু হয় ক্রিয়েটর প্যাডের ধারাবাহিকতা। নিজের সাফল্য খুঁজে পাই এই জায়গায়। একের পর এক ক্যাম্পেইনে নিজেকে সেরা ১০০ এর তালিকায় দেখে নিজের মধ্যে এক অনন্য উদ্যম খুঁজে পাই।
আর দক্ষিন এশিয়ার একজন যুবক হিসেবে ক্রিয়েটর প্যাডের রিওয়ার্ড আমার কাছে অনেক বেশি। সবগুলো ক্যাম্পেইন থেকে যা রিওয়ার্ড পেয়েছি, তা দিয়ে সুন্দর একটা বিজনেস শুরু করা যায়। কিন্তু আমি তার কিছু অংশ কাজে লাগাই বাইনেন্সে ট্রেড করতে।
ক্রিয়েটর থেকে হতে শুরু করি ট্রেডার, নিয়মিত বিভিন্ন লাইভ থেকে ট্রেড সম্পর্কে আরো বিস্তারিত জানতে শুরু করি, আর এভাবেই শুরু হয় নতুন ট্রেডিং লাইফের যাত্রা।
এখানে ফ্রি ইনকামের অনেক বেশিই সুযোগ আছে, যেমন "Write to Earn"। কেউ যদি ভালো একজন বিশ্লেষক হয়ে থাকে, তাহলে সে সহজেই এখানে পোস্ট করে ভালো একটা কমিশন উপার্জন করতে পারে।
সত্যি বলতে কখনো ভাবিনি আমি নিজেকে একজন ক্রিয়েটর হিসেবে গড়ে তুলতে পারবো। অনেক Social Media রয়েছে, যেখানে এখন শুধুই সামাজিক অবক্ষয় আর নৈতিকতার অবক্ষয়। কিন্তু বাইনেন্স স্কয়ার এমন এক প্ল্যাটফর্ম তৈরি করেছে যেখানে ছড়িয়ে দেওয়া হয় জ্ঞান আর শিক্ষা।
তাই ধন্যবাদ জানাতে চাই বাইনেন্সকে, আমাকে এতো সুন্দর একটা প্ল্যাটফর্ম উপহার দেওয়ার জন্য। বাইনেন্স তার লক্ষ্যের দিকে এগিয়ে যাচ্ছে, ইকোসিস্টেমকে করে তুলেছে আরো শক্তিশালী। আর এই ইকোসিস্টেমের প্রাণ হলো বাইনেন্স ক্রিয়েটর।
#BinanceSquare #creatorpad #Write2Earn

The way a file is stored does not concern most of users. They care that it loads fast. They care whether the link works. Do they care that the content is identical today and tomorrow? Builders in Web3 understand this, but many have encountered a tough problem. Storing content in a decentralized manner can be slower and more complex than traditional web hosting. If the experience is not painful, users go.
Walrus seeks to close this distance. It is a decentralized storage protocol for arbitrary large data objects, such as files or pieces of files. A blob is merely something that is not tabled. like Walrus is for blobs. It also assists in proofs that a blob is saved and that it’s available for retrieval later. Walrus was designed to make data available in the presence of a subset of storage nodes going down, or misbehaving. This scenario is sometimes referred to as a Byzantine fault environment. Walrus makes use of the Sui for coordination, payment and availability attestations. The blob content stays off-chain. Sui or its validators only see metadata.
Here is the part that feels familiar to the web now. Walrus permits access via Web2 HTTP mechanisms. It does so with interfaces to aggregators and caches. These are not required. They are there to help making reads faster and easier.

An aggregator is a client that constructs the full blob from smaller persisted pieces. Walrus places chunks encoded portions of each blob on storage nodes. That’s not the kind of pieces a typical user wants to gather. They want the file. Heavy lifting is done by an aggregator. It asks the storage nodes for the necessary blocks. Then it reconstructs the blob. Then it presents the blob to users via HTTP.
This helps in a simple way. Instead it allows apps to use real web patterns. HTTP is the way a website requests content. A mobile app can do the same. A user can be up and running without having to learn new tools. Developers can leverage existing web libraries and caches. They can also take advantage of standard content delivery configurations.
Walrus also supports caches. An on-disk aggregate with storage for popular results is called a cache. It caches blobs it has requested recently, so that they don’t need to be built every time. This offloads the storage nodes. It's reducing latency for users as well. It also shifts the cost of reconstruction across many requests.
One point that Walrus is crystal clear on. Aggregators and caches are optional. End users can continue to read directly from the storage nodes. Users are able to start a local aggregator as well. This is attractive to those who desire the most decentralization. It’s valuable, too, for teams that want total control.
Walrus also doesn't require you to make a blind leap of faith cache-wise. We design it with the fact that a client will be able to check the correctness. Walrus takes a blob id that ties the blob to its encoded entity and metadata. A client can verify that the data a cache returns matches what is committed by the blob ID. This is a key idea. Everything doesn’t have to have verification stripped from it for speed. Cache it could be fast, and the client can still verify.

This model is also consistent with how CDNs operate today. Walrus is not attempting to be a CDN. It tries to work well with CDNs. Caches can act like CDNs. They can reduce latency. They can improve connectivity. They can reduce repeated work. The approach of Walrus is to ensure that the actual content remains verifiable and accessible, even when the network partially collapses.
For developers, this is practical. You can put big media on Walrus. You can serve it over HTTP. You can continue to maintain a foundation that’s decentralized. You can also in times of need show availability. You can also maintain general user experience. That is often where the gap lies between a demo and a product.
This can be a big deal for DeFi and on-chain apps, too. DeFi frequently requires relatively large files that may not belong on-chain. These may be known as audit packs, evidence bundles and libraries. You probably want them to be accessible by anyone. You might also want them to load quickly on a dashboard. Caches can assist with HTTP delivery. The trust model can be kept clean by verifying through blob IDs.
Walrus is trying to meet users where they are. People already know HTTP. People already use browsers. People already rely on caching. Walrus keeps those habits. What it puts underneath them is a layer of decentralized storage. It also introduces a mechanism to validate what you are receiving. That is the quiet goal. Make Web3 storage feel usable, without ceding the power to validate the truth.
@Walrus 🦭/acc
#Walrus
#walrus
$WAL

The first time I made a trade, I felt like I was entering the future. I pressed a button, saw the chart move and got my order confirm instantaneously. It was instant, the digital era catching up to the speed of money. Then I found out what goes on beneath that slick interface. Settlement still takes time. Paperwork still exists, just hidden. Custody remains multiple layers removed from where they interpose. And the more serious the asset becomes, stocks, bonds, regulated instruments, the more quietly the system reverts to form: delays, gatekeepers and complexity you don’t feel until something goes wrong.
That gulf between what trading appears like and the way it works is one of the primary reasons real-world assets haven’t moved on-chain meaningfully. Not because blockchains can’t move value fast; they can be faster, and speed does matter. They’re about rules. They’re about compliance. They’re about privacy. They’re about audit trails. And that’s precisely why DuskTrade is such a sign.
Founded in 2018, Dusk wasn’t created as “just another Layer 1.” It is designed for regulated financial infrastructure that is privacy-preserving, where privacy and auditability are not mutually exclusive, but rather co-dependencies. That intention does matter, because the most difficult part of bringing real-world assets on-chain isn’t minting a token. It is creating an environment where those assets can live, and trade, settle and be in compliance in the way that we would expect real world financial products to operate.

DuskTrade is set to go live in 2026, and it’s being presented as Dusk’s first major use case: a compliant trading and investment platform, working with NPEX, a regulated market from the Netherlands. The headline detail isn’t the mere fact of “tokenized assets”; it’s how they fit into a framework. NPEX has MTF, Broker and ECSP licenses, and aims to onboard €300M+ tokenized securities on-chain. That’s not a demo. That’s not a vibe. That is a serious effort to make blockchain into market infrastructure that real institutions can use.
A lot of crypto has attempted to tell the RWA story. But RWAs are one of those narratives that disintegrate the moment you ask a practical question: who is legally allowed to issues this, who makes sure investors follow onboarding rules, how do I ensure market integrity or keep privacy, without breaching transparency obligations?
So that’s where DuskTrade becomes something more than a “product launch.” It becomes a blueprint.
When you build with a regulated exchange, you can’t just add credibility but are compelling the system to be real. “Licensing is the line between a token that exists and an asset that can be traded under compliance.” The trust layer in traditional markets is the exchange. In crypto, exchanges are often little more than venues. DuskTrade is combining those worlds into something more akin to what regulated finance really wants: a contemporary on-chain venue that is engineered with the legal frameworks necessary so that it can run as an actual market.
Now imagine a simple scenario.
A relatively young European business is looking to raise up some money. In the old world, this is a cumbersome process of paperwork, middlemen, delays and fragmented ownership records. In a tokenized world, the “share” or “bond” is a digital asset, but it still requires compliant onboarding, clear auditability and trading rails that don’t lay everybody’s positions and strategies out in public.
With DuskTrade’s guidance, the flow looks cleaner. A user signs up, goes through KYC process when the service is available in his/her country and gets compliant access to tokenized investment products. The investor does not have to understand cryptography to derive value from it; they encounter a more seamless market. Under the hood, the infrastructure is built to manage those things that count in regulated settings: privacy where it should be and auditability where it must be.
And here’s the part most people miss: privacy is not a “nice-to-have” for finance.
In the crypto space, transparency is too frequently taken as an unambiguous good. But in professional trading, complete transparency is a weakness. A big investors’ visible positions are a liability. If a plan can be made, it can be undone. If counterparties can be compromised relationships can be profiled and leveraged. That’s why finance with sensitive activity is protected by traditional finance, and that’s why the public-by-default blockchains have a hard time being serious market rails.
And Dusk’s approach is built for that reality. With its EVM layer, Dusk’s smart contracts will allow for standard Solidity smart contracts to be deployed; settling straight onto the Dusk Layer 1 removes the “hassle” slowing down integration. It matters, because the number one way to drive adoption of web tools is not forcing it on world to learn new ones; it’s making developers more productive where they already are.
And then there is the privacy layer that makes it institution-grade.
Hedger enables privacy-preserving yet auditable transactions on EVM using zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic encryption, designed for regulated financial use cases. That’s an important phrase: compliant privacy. Not privacy as an escape hatch, but privacy as a feature that can coexist with oversight.
If you’re a developer reading this, here’s why this is a big deal.
For years, building in crypto has meant choosing between two unpleasant extremes: fully transparent DeFi apps that leak like a sieve, and privacy systems that are miserable to use because they can’t add up or worry about integrating with the rest of the world. Another option here, and one that is third way in Dusk’s direction, if you like, is to make sure there should be a path for an EVM-like environment to feel completely comfortable running privacy-preserving logic without crossing over the regulated barrier. Which means you could build investment flows, tokenized asset interactions or compliant DeFi mechanics without having to assume your users are cool with sharing their financial life in public.
The timing also matters. DuskEVM mainnet is planned for the second week of January, which means builders aren’t just looking at an idea; they’re looking at an execution layer that can be built on. When execution is a reality, ecosystems emerge more quickly: tooling, integrations and applications begin to appear.

Now flip the perspective.
If you’re a client, an institution, an issuer or to be honest just a serious investor, DuskTrade matters because it points to the idea that tokenized assets are not merely interesting experiments. Rather, they exist in a system meant to be used by the regulated entities. It’s not just that “can we trade this,” but also “can we trade this legally, at scale, with privacy and with good market structure?”
That’s what makes the NPEX partnership unique. NPEX is not just a name in a press release; it’s a regulated exchange Counterparty with licenses that determine what market activities are feasible. The key point in the 2026 launch of DuskTrade lies in the combination of NPEX’s licensing framework with Dusk’s privacy-centric Layer 1 infrastructure.
Even the minutiae are signals. With the waitlist going live in January, it seems clear that the platform is entering a kind of early onboarding stage, not necessarily building quietly behind the scenes, but genuinely setting up access to potential users. Unlike in an unregulated market, where viral hype can go a long way, this is the kind of orchestrated rollout that carries weight.
Ultimately, DuskTrade is boring due to the fact its about RWAs coming. It’s an interesting one, because it targets the hardest version of that problem: Taking regulated securities on-chain in a way that can actually survive reality. Compliance is not like a patch. Privacy isn’t an afterthought, either. Developers aren’t made to abandon their current EVM workflows. And the product vision is unambiguous: a compliant trading and investment platform that has real-world scale ambitions.
That’s how trading starts to feel like the future again, not just on your screen, but in the infrastructure that underlies it.
@Dusk
#dusk
$DUSK

Sui moves fast, but until you can store the “real world” parts of an app, images, video, audio, game maps, AI datasets, messy logs, giant configuration files, your onchain experience still feels like a showroom: beautiful, interactive, and slightly empty once people ask where everything actually lives. That’s the quiet reason @Walrus 🦭/acc matters so much to the Sui ecosystem. It doesn’t try to replace Sui or compete with it. It completes it. Sui can be the place where ownership, permissions, payments, and composable logic happen at internet speed, while Walrus becomes the place where the heavy, human-sized pieces of modern apps can exist without being forced into tiny onchain boxes.
The simplest way to picture the relationship is like this: Sui is the brain that keeps track of meaning, and Walrus is the body that holds the mass. An app can mint an object on Sui that represents a piece of content, a membership, a game asset, a dataset license, or a record of provenance. That object can point to a blob stored in Walrus, and when storage is confirmed, Walrus can produce an onchain Proof of Availability certificate on Sui. Suddenly the ecosystem gets a new primitive that feels obvious in hindsight: not just “here is a link,” but “here is a verifiable receipt that this data was stored and should be retrievable for the agreed time.” That receipt-like idea changes how builders think. They stop treating storage as a best-effort external dependency and start treating it as something their smart contracts can reason about.

Once you have that, whole categories of applications stop being awkward and start being natural. The first category is media-first products that don’t want to pretend they’re DeFi. Imagine a creator publishing episodes, lessons, research, or art where the content itself is the product. In most crypto apps, creators sell access to a token and then route the actual files through Web2 hosting, hoping nothing breaks. In a Sui + Walrus world, the creator can sell access on Sui, subscriptions, passes, limited editions, while the actual media lives in Walrus and the app can treat “availability” like part of the business logic. It becomes possible to build a content platform where ownership and monetization are onchain, and the storage layer isn’t a hidden single point of failure.
The second category is gaming that finally behaves like gaming. Onchain games are often forced into minimalist designs because their assets don’t fit on-chain, and relying on centralized hosting undermines the promise of persistence. But games are essentially asset pipelines: textures, soundtracks, maps, replays, cosmetics, user-generated creations. With Walrus, the big assets can live in a decentralized blob store while Sui tracks who owns what, who can use what, and what gets composed together. A sword isn’t just a token ID anymore; it can be an object that points to real asset data, upgrade history, and versioned visuals. And because Sui is fast, gameplay loops don’t need to wait for slow finality just to update ownership or state.
Then there’s social. Web3 social apps often hit the same wall: the social graph might be onchain, but the posts, images, and video are somewhere else. That makes the app feel like a crypto wrapper around a traditional feed. Walrus lets Sui social products become content-native. When a post is created, the data can be stored as a blob, and the post object on Sui can reference it. That single design shift makes new experiences possible: verifiable archives of posts, portable identity tied to content, and communities that can move front ends without losing their history. It also creates a healthier developer reality. If the storage layer is designed for big files, teams don’t have to choose between “decentralized ideals” and “the app actually works.”
NFTs become less fragile too, and that’s a bigger deal than people admit. The NFT world learned the hard way that it’s not enough to own a token if the metadata and media vanish, change, or break. With Walrus, storing NFT media and metadata in a purpose-built blob layer can reduce the chance that the experience degrades into broken links. On Sui, NFTs can be rich objects with composable attributes; Walrus gives them a better home for the bytes that make the NFT feel real. That unlocks a more serious kind of digital collectible, one that’s closer to software than to a static image.
One of the most interesting shifts is what happens to websites and app front ends. If your front end lives on traditional hosting, you can still have “decentralized” contracts, but the doorway can be shut at any time. A decentralized storage layer makes it plausible to host sites and app assets in a way that’s harder to censor and easier to preserve. When the site itself becomes something that can be owned and managed through Sui objects, developers start thinking differently about publishing. A project can ship a front end that’s not just a URL, but an owned resource that can be upgraded transparently and referenced by other apps.
AI is the category everyone loves to mention, but there’s a grounded reason it fits. AI isn’t just about models; it’s about data. Datasets, embeddings, training artifacts, evaluation sets, and provenance trails are huge, and they need to be shareable, verifiable, and retrievable. Walrus offers a storage layer suited for large blobs, while Sui can manage permissions, licensing, payment splits, and provenance objects that point to those blobs. That combination can enable something practical: data products. Instead of “trust me, this dataset exists,” you can build markets where access rights are onchain and the data is stored in a network designed to keep it available.

There’s also a less glamorous but extremely important category: archives. Chains and apps produce an ocean of data that people want to keep, historical state snapshots, analytics logs, proofs, research corpuses, and community records. In many ecosystems, long-term data storage ends up in centralized services because it’s simpler. Walrus makes it easier to imagine public archives that are not dependent on a single organization. And if Sui references those archives as objects, apps can build on them like libraries, not like private databases.
What ties all these categories together is that they remove a hidden tax on builders: the constant need to stitch together a Web2 storage story with a Web3 ownership story. When storage is treated as a first-class piece of the ecosystem, builders stop spending energy on duct tape and start spending it on product design. It also changes who can build. Smaller teams can ship richer apps because they don’t need to invent a storage strategy from scratch. They can lean on a shared primitive: blobs in Walrus, meaning and ownership on Sui.
And that is why Walrus isn’t just “another protocol” in the Sui ecosystem. It’s a permissionless upgrade to what Sui can represent. Without big, reliable data, a high-performance chain mainly excels at moving small pieces of value and state around. With a blob layer next to it, Sui can host products that look like real internet applications: media platforms, games, social networks, data markets, publishing tools, archives, and experiences that feel complete rather than symbolic. Over time, that completeness compounds. More complete apps attract more users. More users justify more infrastructure. More infrastructure makes the next wave of apps easier to build.
If Sui is where the rules of the digital world are enforced, Walrus is where the world’s stuff can finally live. That’s how an ecosystem stops being “a chain with apps” and becomes something closer to a full stack, logic, ownership, and content all speaking the same language.
#Walrus
$WAL

Most blockchains talk about “apps,” but regulated finance is less about apps and more about behavior. What rules must be enforced. What must stay private. What must be provable. And what must settle with certainty.
@Dusk ’s larger vision sits inside that reality. It frames itself as infrastructure for regulated financial applications where privacy is not a workaround and compliance is not an afterthought. In that kind of system, the execution environment matters a lot, because execution is where the rules actually run.
That is why Dusk doesn’t stop at an EVM layer. DuskEVM exists for a clear reason: the world already knows Solidity. The tools are mature. Wallets, integrations, and developer habits are already there. If Dusk wants builders and institutions to ship faster, EVM familiarity is the shortest bridge.

But privacy-heavy finance has a different kind of workload. Sometimes you don’t just need to run a contract. You need to run a contract that can handle privacy logic cleanly, verify cryptographic proofs efficiently, and keep data exposure under control. That’s where Dusk’s “second path” comes in.
This second path is the privacy-focused side of the stack, often described as DuskVM in Dusk’s multilayer architecture. In that architecture, DuskDS is the settlement and data layer, DuskEVM is the EVM execution layer, and DuskVM is a forthcoming privacy application layer. The key idea is separation. Settlement stays stable. Execution can specialize. Privacy gets its own room instead of being squeezed into whatever the EVM happens to allow.
To understand why this matters, it helps to understand what WASM is. WASM, or WebAssembly, is a compact bytecode format designed to run code in a predictable sandbox. Think of it as a common “portable machine language” that many programming languages can compile into. Instead of betting everything on one contract language, WASM lets an ecosystem support contracts that arrive through different front doors, as long as they end up in the same standardized bytecode at runtime.
Dusk’s documentation describes “Dusk VM” as its WASM virtual machine for running Dusk smart contracts, based on the Wasmtime runtime with custom modifications. It also states plainly that the VM expects WASM as the bytecode format, meaning smart contracts must be compiled into WASM to run. The VM provides the standardized execution environment, and the contract handles its own logic and validation inside that environment.
The interesting part is not just that it runs WASM. It’s why. Dusk’s documentation also frames Dusk VM as “ZK-friendly,” and says it can natively support certain zero-knowledge operations such as SNARK verification, while using a different approach to memory handling than many blockchain VMs. That reads like a design aimed at cryptography-heavy workloads, not just everyday token transfers. It suggests Dusk wants an execution environment that is comfortable with proofs, not merely compatible with them.
This is one of the clearest reasons to have both EVM and WASM in the same project. The EVM lane is about compatibility and speed of integration. It’s where you can deploy familiar contracts with familiar tooling and connect to familiar systems. The WASM/privacy lane is about doing the hard work of privacy-native applications in an environment shaped for that job, not forced into it.
Dusk’s multilayer evolution post describes the forthcoming privacy layer as executing complete privacy-preserving applications using the Phoenix output-based transaction model, and it mentions a virtual machine (Piecrust) that was embedded in DuskDS and is being extracted into that privacy layer. The message is consistent even if the internal naming evolves: privacy execution is being separated and treated as a dedicated domain, not a feature toggle.
There is also a practical engineering reason this approach can age well. Regulated finance changes slower than consumer apps, but it changes. New compliance expectations appear. New asset structures become common. New privacy demands emerge when institutions get serious. A modular stack lets Dusk evolve execution environments without constantly disturbing settlement. That’s a mature posture for a system that wants to be used under scrutiny.
And the DUSK token is meant to keep the whole stack coherent while this happens. Dusk’s multilayer architecture post states that a single $DUSK token fuels all three layers, and that a validator-run native bridge moves value between layers without wrapped assets or custodians. In plain terms, DUSK is intended to be the common fuel: staking and security at the settlement layer, and gas for activity in the execution layers. That matters because fragmentation is a hidden tax. If each layer has its own fuel, users hesitate and developers suffer. A single economic thread makes a modular system feel like one system.
So the “why another VM?” question has a clean answer in the Dusk context. Dusk is trying to build regulated financial infrastructure where privacy isn’t a bolt-on. That means it needs a place where privacy-heavy logic can live comfortably, where proof verification and confidential workflows are first-class citizens. The EVM path brings developers and integrations quickly. The WASM/ZK-friendly path is meant to carry the deeper privacy workload with fewer compromises. And DuskDS beneath it all is meant to keep settlement final and legible.
If Dusk succeeds, it won’t be because it picked the “best” VM in abstract. It will be because it matched the right execution environment to the right job, while keeping the system unified enough to be usable.
#dusk