Mr_Green个

On the day you notice it, it feels almost silly that sending “digital dollars” can still be hard. A friend messages you a wallet address and asks for a small amount of USD₮. You open a wallet, paste the address, and then the tiny frictions start stacking up. Which network is the “right” one? Why do you need a second token just to pay fees? Why did the transaction fail, and why does it take long enough that you keep checking your phone like you’re waiting for a delivery driver?
@Plasma ’s pitch begins right there: if stablecoins are becoming the default way millions of people move value, especially in markets where dollars are savings, remittances, payroll, and day-to-day commerce, then the infrastructure should feel less like a developer playground and more like a payment network. Plasma describes itself as a high-performance Layer-1 built for USD₮ payments at global scale, emphasizing near-instant transfers, low fees, and full EVM compatibility.
That sounds like a tagline until you look at what Plasma is actually optimizing for. Many blockchains are designed as general highways; Plasma is designed like a stablecoin rail line. Binance Research summarizes the focus bluntly: Plasma targets stablecoin settlement, combines Ethereum compatibility (via Reth) with sub-second finality (via PlasmaBFT), and adds stablecoin-centric features such as zero-fee USD₮ transfers and “stablecoin-first gas,” while also aiming for Bitcoin-anchored security to strengthen neutrality and censorship resistance.
A chain that starts with USD₮, not “crypto first” assumptions:
The most important design choice Plasma makes is philosophical: it treats stablecoin transfer as the primary workload, not a side feature. In practical terms, this means Plasma is trying to remove the two most common “first-time user” blockers: paying fees with an unfamiliar token and waiting long enough that the payment doesn’t feel like a payment. On the performance side, Binance Research notes PlasmaBFT is a leader-based BFT consensus inspired by Fast HotStuff, targeting under-one-second block finality and high throughput.
On the compatibility side, Plasma doesn’t ask developers to learn a new language or throw away a toolchain. Execution is described as “full EVM compatibility” via Reth, which matters because it means the Ethereum world, wallets, RPC patterns, Solidity contracts, auditing workflows, can carry over with minimal re-learning.
So when someone asks, “Is Plasma just for payments?” the more accurate answer is: Plasma is payments-first, but not payments-only. It’s an EVM chain, so you can still build the applications that naturally grow around stablecoins: swaps, lending markets, merchant tooling, payroll systems, settlement dashboards, and all the glue code institutions need to reconcile and report.

The “gas problem,” rewritten around stablecoins:
Stablecoins are supposed to be the simple part: one token that behaves like money. But on most chains, the “money” isn’t the token you’re sending; it’s the gas token you need to hold first. Plasma tries to flip that experience.
Binance Research describes “stablecoin-first gas” as a core feature, where fees can be paid in USD₮/BTC via an automated swap mechanism while keeping XPL at the core of the system.
For a beginner, the benefit is obvious: fewer reasons for a transaction to fail because the user didn’t pre-buy a gas token. For a product team, it’s even bigger: it makes onboarding feel like onboarding into a payments app, not onboarding into a new asset class.

“Gasless” USD₮ transfers, as a chain-native feature:
Then Plasma goes a step further and tackles the idea that even “low fees” still feel like friction when the payment is small or frequent. Plasma’s documentation for zero-fee USD₮ transfers describes an API-managed relayer system that sponsors only direct USD₮ transfers, designed with identity-aware controls and rate limits to prevent abuse.
The detail that makes this feel less like marketing is how specific the mechanism is. The docs explain that the paymaster is funded by the Plasma Foundation, gas is covered at the moment of sponsorship (not reimbursed later), and users never need to hold XPL just to move USD₮. It also explicitly notes the system “does not mint or reward anything” as part of the subsidy itself, framing sponsorship as transparent, observable spend tied to real transfers.
For developers, Plasma positions this as “no weird wallet changes required.” The same document calls out EIP-712 signing and EIP-3009 authorization signatures as prerequisites for integrating gasless USDT0 transfers through the Plasma Relayer API.
If you’re new to this, here’s the intuition: instead of the user paying gas directly, the user signs a permission (“I authorize this transfer under these conditions”), and a relayer submits it onchain and pays the execution cost. The stablecoin transfer still happens onchain; the “gas experience” is simply abstracted away from the user.

“This is where it gets real”: launch narrative and day-one liquidity:
Plasma has leaned hard into distribution and liquidity because payments don’t win by being clever, they win by being available. In its mainnet beta announcement, Plasma set a very specific launch moment: Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 8:00 AM ET, when mainnet beta would go live alongside the launch of XPL.
The same announcement claimed $2B in stablecoins would be active from day one, deployed across “100+ DeFi partners,” naming protocols such as Aave, Ethena, Fluid, and Euler as examples, with the stated goal of immediate utility like deep USD₮ markets and savings use cases.
The important takeaway isn’t whether you personally use DeFi; it’s that Plasma is attempting to start life with a liquid stablecoin economy rather than hoping one appears later. That’s a payments mindset: liquidity isn’t a bonus; it’s the product.

Where Bitcoin fits in a stablecoin chain:
Plasma’s “Bitcoin-anchored security” messaging can sound abstract, so it helps to keep it grounded. Binance Research frames this as a plan to anchor state to Bitcoin via a trust-minimized bridge, with the intended effect of strengthening neutrality and censorship resistance.
You don’t have to be a Bitcoin maximalist to understand the appeal: payments networks are political as soon as they matter, and anchoring to a highly neutral settlement layer is a way to signal that the chain wants to be harder to coerce as it scales.

$XPL : the chain’s long-term engine, not the stablecoin you’re trying to spend:
A stablecoin chain still needs a native economic system that funds security, infrastructure, and incentives. Plasma’s docs place XPL in that role: it’s the native token used to facilitate transactions and reward validators.
Plasma states the initial supply at mainnet beta launch is 10,000,000,000 XPL, and the distribution is laid out plainly: 10% public sale, 40% ecosystem and growth, 25% team, and 25% investors, with detailed unlock schedules and a portion of the ecosystem allocation unlocking at mainnet beta for launch needs.
On long-term supply dynamics, Plasma’s tokenomics page describes validator rewards beginning at 5% annual inflation, decreasing by 0.5% per year until reaching a 3% baseline, and it adds a key nuance: inflation only activates when external validators and stake delegation go live. It also states Plasma follows an EIP-1559 model where base fees are burned, designed to help offset inflation as usage grows.
For beginners, the simple read is: USD₮ is the “money people move,” while XPL is the asset designed to secure the system and coordinate incentives as usage scales. For developers and ecosystem builders, it’s the substrate that makes the stablecoin UX features sustainable over time.

The funding and the ecosystem signal:
Plasma’s own announcement says it raised $24M across Seed and Series A led by Framework and Bitfinex/USD₮0, with participants spanning trading firms, exchanges, and notable individuals. A mainstream confirmation from Fortune also reported the $24M raise led by Framework, with participation including Bitfinex and individual backers such as Peter Thiel and Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino.
And because stablecoin networks are only as useful as their on/off ramps, it’s notable that Bitfinex later announced support for USDT0 on Plasma, allowing customers to convert USDt to USDT0 and withdraw to supported chains such as Plasma.

The Plasma idea, in one sentence:
Plasma is trying to make stablecoin transfers feel like using money on the internet: fast enough to trust, simple enough to repeat, and compatible enough that builders can ship without reinventing everything.
Whether it becomes a dominant settlement rail will depend less on clever consensus names and more on the boring wins: uptime, wallet support, compliance-grade integrations, developer tooling, and the ability to grow stablecoin liquidity without sacrificing the neutrality it’s aiming to inherit.
#plasma
#Plasma

Wiele projektów kryptograficznych prosi o ocenę jak aktywów, ale Walrus niemal wyzywa cię, aby ocenić go jak infrastrukturę. To ciekawsza gra w ciągu następnych dwunastu miesięcy, ponieważ @Walrus 🦭/acc nie stara się być nowym „miejscem do handlu.” Stara się być miejscem, w którym znajdują się ciężkie rzeczy: pliki, media, zbiory danych, archiwa i stan aplikacji, na których nowoczesne produkty on-chain cicho polegają. Walrus zadebiutował w sieci głównej 27 marca 2025 roku i od pierwszego dnia był przedstawiany jako drugi duży protokół Mysten Labs po Sui, mniej błyszcząca aplikacja, bardziej podstawowa warstwa mająca sprawić, by internet znów wydawał się programowalny.

Most developers don’t choose a chain first. They choose a toolset. For smart contracts, that toolset is usually the EVM world: Solidity, standard wallets, common libraries, familiar deployment patterns. It’s the language people already speak when they want to ship.
@Dusk ’s bet is simple. If you want regulated finance to move on-chain, you can’t ask builders and institutions to start by unlearning everything. You meet them where they are, and then you change what the destination means.
That destination, in Dusk’s case, is not a “general purpose” chain optimized for maximum public transparency. It is a privacy blockchain for regulated finance. Dusk describes its mission in plain terms: institutions should be able to meet real regulatory requirements on-chain, users should have confidential balances and transfers instead of full public exposure, and developers should be able to build with familiar EVM tools alongside privacy and compliance primitives. That is the shape of the project, and it’s the reason DuskEVM exists.

The phrase “EVM-compatible” gets used loosely in crypto, so it helps to be specific about what Dusk is doing. DuskEVM is presented as an EVM-equivalent execution layer built using the OP Stack. In simple language, the OP Stack is a framework that helps you run an EVM execution environment in a modular way. It’s a practical engineering choice, not a marketing badge. It lets Dusk inherit a mature execution design while focusing its own energy on the parts it cares about most: settlement, data availability, privacy, and compliance.
Now comes the “different destination” part. DuskEVM does not settle to Ethereum. Dusk’s documentation states that while DuskEVM uses the OP Stack architecture, it settles directly using DuskDS rather than Ethereum. DuskDS is the base layer in the stack. It is where settlement happens and where data availability is anchored. DuskEVM also leverages DuskDS to store blobs, so developers can keep using EVM tooling while relying on DuskDS for settlement and data availability.
That one design choice changes the meaning of building “EVM apps on Dusk.” On Ethereum, the default mental model is open visibility. The chain is a public stage. Everything is watchable. That transparency can be useful, but it’s also the source of constant friction when you bring regulated assets into the picture. Real markets need verification, but they do not want every participant’s behavior permanently broadcast.
Dusk is trying to make a different default feel normal. It wants a world where confidentiality is built in, but auditability still exists when it is legitimately required. This is also why Dusk’s architecture is described as multilayer. Dusk’s own “multilayer evolution” write-up explains the stack in terms of specialized layers, with DUSK remaining the single native token across them. DuskDS uses DUSK for staking, governance, and settlement. DuskEVM uses DUSK as gas for Solidity apps and transaction fees. DuskVM, described as a privacy-preserving application layer, is also positioned to use DUSK as gas.
That matters because it turns the token into more than a trading symbol. It becomes the economic thread that keeps the stack coherent. The same asset that secures the settlement layer is also the asset used to pay for execution in the EVM layer.
You can see this in the bridge design too. Dusk describes a native, trustless bridge between DuskDS and DuskEVM, with no external custodians or wrapped assets required. In the public testnet guide, Dusk’s docs explain that when you bridge DUSK from DuskDS to DuskEVM, your DUSK becomes the native gas token on DuskEVM. That’s a subtle but important usability point. If builders have to juggle three different “fuel tokens,” they don’t build. If users have to learn a new fee asset, they hesitate. Dusk is clearly trying to avoid that friction. So far, that’s execution and settlement. But Dusk’s vision is not just “EVM on a new base layer.” It’s “EVM plus confidentiality that regulated markets can actually use.”
That’s where Hedger comes in. Dusk describes Hedger as a privacy engine built specifically for the EVM execution layer. The Hedger article says it brings confidential transactions to DuskEVM using a combination of homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. The wording here matters. Hedger isn’t framed as “hide everything.” It’s framed as compliance-ready privacy for real-world financial applications. The intent is to let transactions remain confidential to the public while still enabling verifiable audit proofs when authorized.
This is the point where DuskEVM becomes more than a compatibility layer. It becomes a bridge between two worlds that usually clash. On one side is the developer ecosystem that already exists. Solidity, EVM tooling, normal workflows. On the other side is the market reality that institutions live in. Privacy, controlled disclosure, audit trails, and rules that cannot be optional.
DuskEVM is Dusk’s attempt to connect those sides without forcing either one to pretend. Developers get a familiar execution environment. The chain still aims to settle in a way that supports regulated finance constraints. Privacy doesn’t get treated as a bolt-on mixer. It becomes a first-class design target.
There’s also a quiet maturity in how Dusk communicates rollout. In the DuskEVM documentation, the network information table lists mainnet as “Live: No” while testnet is “Live: Yes,” alongside chain IDs and RPC endpoints. That kind of blunt status signal is useful. It sets expectations. It also reflects a mindset that fits regulated infrastructure: ship in stages, reduce risk, keep the story legible.

So what is Dusk doing now, and where can this go? Right now, the architecture is being positioned so that EVM apps can run without sacrificing the base chain’s identity. The bridge and token roles suggest Dusk wants a unified user experience across layers. Hedger signals that confidentiality is meant to reach the EVM layer, not stay trapped in a separate privacy-only corner. And the settlement choice, DuskDS as the finality and data availability backbone, signals that the end goal is not just another EVM network. It’s an execution environment pointed at a regulated, privacy-aware settlement layer.
The future, if Dusk’s direction holds, looks less like a sudden explosion and more like steady migration. Builders who already know Solidity can deploy into an environment that aims to support compliance and privacy realities. Institutions can evaluate a stack that doesn’t treat oversight as an afterthought. Users can interact with applications without having to accept full public exposure as the price of participation.
None of this is guaranteed. But the design is coherent. And that coherence is the most important thing a “regulated finance chain” can offer, because regulated markets don’t adopt vibes. They adopt systems that make sense under scrutiny.
#dusk
$DUSK

Tokenization is often described like a magic trick. You take something from the real world, you “put it on-chain,” and now it lives in a wallet. It sounds clean. In practice, most tokenization is a label, not a rebuild. The original asset still lives in the old system. The old rules still run the show. The old settlement still decides what is final. The blockchain becomes a mirror, sometimes a useful one, but still a mirror.
Dusk is pushing for a different idea. It calls it native issuance. Native issuance is a simple phrase. It means the asset is not just represented on-chain. It is created on-chain. Its rules are written into the instrument from day one. Issuance, ownership changes, and lifecycle events live where the ledger lives. The asset is “born digital,” not translated after the fact.

This matters because finance is not only about ownership. It is about process. It is about how an instrument behaves over time, what it allows, what it forbids, and what it must report. Tokenization can move a “wrapper” around, but it often leaves the real process off-chain. Dusk’s argument is that true modernization comes when the process moves too.
To make that concrete, @Dusk starts even earlier than tokenization. It separates digitization, tokenization, and native issuance as three different steps people confuse. Digitization is taking paperwork and making it digital. Tokenization is creating an on-chain representation of an asset that still depends on off-chain systems for the real source of truth. Native issuance is issuing the asset itself on-chain so the ledger is not just a display, but the operating system.
Once you see it that way, the design choices begin to make sense. If you want native issuance, the chain has to handle things that simple tokens avoid. It has to support restrictions. It has to support lifecycle actions. It has to support compliance checks. And if it wants to serve real markets, it has to do that without turning every investor into a public profile.
That is where Dusk’s core identity becomes clearer. Dusk positions itself as privacy-first infrastructure for regulated finance, with the idea of being “private by design” while still allowing authorized disclosure when required. In the real world, privacy and compliance are not opposites. They are both normal. Markets need oversight, but they do not need public surveillance of every participant.
Dusk ties native issuance to a contract standard called XSC, short for Confidential Security Contract. The important word is “security,” because regulated instruments are not just “things you transfer.” They come with rules and responsibilities. Dusk describes XSC as a standard for creating and issuing privacy-enabled tokenized securities, and it frames the goal as bringing the asset management lifecycle on-chain while maintaining end-user privacy.

Behind that standard sits an asset protocol Dusk calls Zedger. In Dusk’s own documentation, Zedger is presented as the component that enables digital representation, native issuance, and management of securities in a privacy-preserving way. It is also described as supporting compliant settlement and lifecycle needs such as redemption, dividend distribution, and voting, including controls like capped transfers. These are not decorative features. They are the kind of mechanics that make an instrument behave like an instrument.
If tokenization is often “a token that points somewhere,” native issuance is closer to “a token that is the somewhere.”
That shift changes what the blockchain is responsible for. It is no longer just tracking a moving symbol. It is enforcing a living set of rules. It is tracking events that matter legally and financially. It is keeping a coherent record of ownership changes because that record is part of what makes the asset real in a market context.
Now the hard part shows up: compliance. Most people treat compliance as a gate that blocks innovation. Dusk treats it as a reality that decides whether regulated assets will ever move on-chain in scale. In its native issuance framing, Dusk explicitly ties the on-chain system to KYC, AML, and compliance being baked into the way issuance works. The goal is not to remove checks. The goal is to make the checks part of the rail, so the market can operate without constant manual reconciliation.
There is also a quieter reason to do this on-chain. Traditional compliance can lead to oversharing. The same identity data gets copied and stored in too many places. Dusk’s broader privacy direction is an attempt to reduce unnecessary exposure while still meeting obligations. The idea is not “no oversight.” It is “oversight without turning private life into public data.”
Native issuance also changes the meaning of settlement. When an instrument is born on-chain, settlement can be designed as part of the system, not as an external dependency. Dusk’s own description of native issuance emphasizes faster settlement and around-the-clock access compared to legacy market hours and delays. This is not a promise that every market instantly becomes frictionless. It is a claim about what becomes possible when issuance and settlement are built into the same digital environment.
So where does the $DUSK token fit into this? If Dusk is building rails for regulated instruments, it still needs the basic fuel that keeps the rails running. Dusk’s tokenomics documentation describes DUSK as the network token used for staking and for paying fees, with a supply model that starts from an initial supply and then emits additional tokens over a long period to reward stakers, with a capped maximum supply. In plain terms, this is the security budget. If you want real instruments to settle on-chain, the chain must be secure and economically maintained.
In a native issuance world, that matters more than people think. Because the chain is no longer hosting “apps.” It is hosting assets with obligations. Security is not a nice-to-have. It is the floor. And then there is the future, which is where native issuance stops being a concept and becomes a timetable.
Dusk has been explicit that it is building toward regulated market structure, not just crypto-native experimentation. In a Dusk update about key priorities, the team describes pursuing a DLT-TSS route with partners as part of creating an “easy route to on-chain native issuance.” It also describes a trading platform built on DuskEVM intended to provide access to regulated assets such as stocks, bonds, and money market funds. Those are big words, but the direction is simple: build issuance, trading, and settlement as a coherent system rather than scattered pieces.
So when you write about “native issuance vs tokenization” in the Dusk context, you are really writing about a choice of where reality lives.
Tokenization often leaves reality off-chain and brings a copy on-chain. Native issuance tries to put reality on-chain from the start, with rules embedded, privacy respected, and audit paths available when required. It is harder work. It also fits the world that regulated assets actually live in.
If Dusk succeeds, it will not feel like a magic trick. It will feel like boring infrastructure done correctly. The kind that reduces paperwork, reduces reconciliation, shortens settlement, and still respects privacy. That is what modernization looks like when it is meant to last.
#dusk

Pierwszy raz, gdy otworzyłem Binance Square, nie czułem, że wkraczam w inny kanał społecznościowy. Czułem się jakbym wchodził do miasta, w którym zawsze coś się dzieje—rynki się poruszają, wiadomości wybuchają, społeczności debatują, budowniczowie dostarczają, a uczniowie szukają następnego wglądu, który naprawdę ma znaczenie. Większość platform traktuje twórców jak artystów na scenie, występujących przed wędrującym tłumem. Binance Square wydaje się inny, ponieważ tłum nie wędruje. Są tutaj z jakiegoś powodu.

Ludzie często mówią o Web3, jakby składał się z transakcji. Ale sieć, której faktycznie używamy, składa się z plików. Strony, obrazy, modele, filmy, zbiory danych, dowody, raporty, archiwa. Im cięższa rzecz, tym mniej chce mieszkać w blockchainie. A jednak im cięższa rzecz, tym bardziej pragniemy, aby miała niezawodny dom, który nie zależy od jednej firmy, która pozostaje miła, wypłacalna i online.
@Walrus 🦭/acc jest zbudowane w tej luce. Jest to zdecentralizowany protokół przechowywania zaprojektowany do dużych, nieustrukturyzowanych treści zwanych blobami. Blob to po prostu plik lub obiekt danych, który nie jest przechowywany jak wiersze w tabeli bazy danych. Walrus wspiera przechowywanie blobów, ich odczytywanie oraz udowadnianie i weryfikowanie ich dostępności. Jest zaprojektowany tak, aby dane były możliwe do odzyskania, nawet jeśli niektóre węzły przechowujące zawiodą lub zachowają się złośliwie, klasa problemów często opisana jako błędy bizantyjskie. Walrus wykorzystuje blockchain Sui do koordynacji, płatności i poświadczeń dostępności, jednocześnie trzymając zawartość blobów poza łańcuchem. Walrus jasno określa, że tylko metadane są udostępniane Sui lub jego walidatorom, a nie sama zawartość bloba.

W małym pokoju w Dhace jest godzina 1 w nocy. Na ekranie laptopa wyświetla się wykres, na telefonie pisane są jakieś linie jak notatki: "Dlaczego dzisiejszy rynek się zmienia?" Nishat ma zaledwie 21 lat. Jest studentem uniwersytetu, ale ma wielkie marzenia, chce nauczyć ludzi swoją wiedzą, stworzyć rozpoznawalność dzięki własnym treściom, a jeśli to możliwe, również zdobyć jakieś dochody. Kiedyś polegał na grupach na Facebooku, filmach na YouTube lub sekcjach komentarzy typu "Bro, daj jakąś sugestię" w poszukiwaniu tego marzenia. Ale było w tym jeden problem, wszyscy to widzieli, wszyscy mówili, ale bardzo mało osób naprawdę przywiązywało do tego wartość. A dochód? To już w ogóle inna sprawa.