Shafin-

Everyone who trades in the crypto market these days knows how bad latency is. Solana has a very high TPS, but it doesn’t have the smooth execution like CEX in real time. MEV, slippage, and wait – these are daily pains. This is where @undefined comes in as a game changer!

Fogo is an SVM-based Layer 1 blockchain, built using only the Firedancer client. It runs Jump Crypto’s Firedancer, which is fully optimized, so that block times are sub-40ms, and finality is in seconds! What does this mean? On-chain trading will now feel like CEX, but fully decentralized. Gas-free UX, in-consensus price feed from Pyth Network, MEV reduction with frequent batch auctions – all in all, institutional grade performance.

When I first tried it on the testnet, I was amazed. As soon as I clicked to swap, it was executed immediately, there was no wait. Solana’s programs, tools, wallet – everything can be easily ported. It’s a paradise for developers. DeFi projects that suffer from latency, or want to run HFT-style bots – everything is possible on Fogo.

The token plays a central role here. Gas fees, staking, governance – it’s used for everything. Current price is around $0.021 (according to CoinGecko/CoinMarketCap), market cap ~$80M, and 24h volume $15-20M+. It was volatile since launch, but is now slowly stabilizing. For those who believe that real-time DeFi will come in the long term, it makes sense to hold $FOGO.

More cool stuff – Fogo already has projects like PyronFi (lending), Ignition (LST), OnchainOil (deflationary asset) live. Flame Season Points program is running, which rewards active users. The ecosystem is growing rapidly.

Honestly, this seems to me to be the most exciting SVM chain after Solana. If you are serious about DeFi, hate latency, and want fast execution – check out @fogo. Mainnet is live, start trading. The future is here.

What do you think? Are you investing in or keeping it on your watchlist? Share in the comments!

@FOGO

Today, I want to talk about $WAL again. I see that the market is a bit red for the past few days, many coins are dumping, and $WAL is no exception. Now the price is hovering around $0.089-$0.092 (I checked from CoinMarketCap/CoinGecko, down -3% to -6% in 24 hours). Market cap ~$143M-$149M, circulating supply 1.61 billion, total max 5 billion. Volume is also decent ~$12M-$16M in 24 hours, which means there is liquidity, but we still have to wait for a big pump.
But brother, why am I still bullish? Because Walrus is not just another meme coin – it is a proper decentralized storage protocol built on the Sui blockchain. The DePIN sector is now a hit, the way projects like Filecoin and Arweave have grown, Walrus also has that potential. They offer blob storage – super efficient and chip-like for storing large files like images, videos, data, AI models, NFTs. With Sui’s high speed + low fees, it’s very competitive.
What’s happened in the last few months? Listing on Binance, transaction resumption on Upbit, Coinbase roadmap addition (along with DeepBook), Walrus Foundation’s $140M fundraising news (from a16z, Standard Crypto) – these are all signals of long-term growth. A few projects like 3DOS using Walrus for 3D design storage, apps like T’order recording fast orders with Sui + Walrus. These are real use cases, not just hype.
Of course there is risk. ATH was ~$0.76-$0.97 (last year May), much lower since then. Token unlock, bearish market phase, BTC/ETH movement – ​​all of these are putting pressure. But for those looking to hold long term, this dip seems perfect for DCA. I myself accumulated some last month around $0.10-$0.12, now I want to buy more if it goes below $0.085.
What could happen next? If the Sui ecosystem grows further (like DeepBook, other DeFi/gaming projects), the demand for Walrus will increase. Storage providers get rewarded with WAL, users pay for storage in WAL – it’s a self-sustaining loop. There is also governance, holders can vote.
Last but not least: Don’t think of $WAL as just ‘another Sui token’. It’s the future of DePIN + AI data storage. If you believe in Sui, Walrus is a can’t miss. I'm holding, and buying on the dip. What do you guys think? Are you afraid of the dump or do you see the opportunity? Tell me in the comments! @Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL

The first time I really cared about decentralized storage wasn’t during a bull run. It was on a normal day when a link I needed simply died. Not the blockchain, not my wallet, not the smart contract. Just the “off chain” file an app quietly depended on. The app still existed, but the thing I came for was gone. That is the moment you learn what decentralized storage networks are actually selling: not convenience, but survival.
Walrus sits inside that exact problem. Most crypto users think they are buying censorship resistance or cheaper storage. Traders usually frame it as a narrative trade. Investors talk about “infrastructure.” But the day to day reality is simpler. Apps leak users when basic parts of the experience fail. Images do not load. Game assets corrupt. A dataset vanishes. A creator loses trust. That is the retention problem: people do not rage quit because fees are high. They leave because the product feels unreliable, and reliability is emotional before it is technical.
Centralized storage wins on convenience. It is fast, familiar, and boring, which is a compliment. You pay, you upload, you forget about it. Decentralized storage tries to win on a different axis: resilience under messy conditions. Nodes can go offline. A provider can get pressured. A region can have an outage. A company can change terms. The network is supposed to keep data retrievable anyway. That design choice immediately creates trade offs that matter for investors. The product is not “store my file.” The product is “keep my file available even when parts of the system fail.”
Walrus is built as a decentralized “blob” storage network with a control plane tied to Sui’s object model, aiming to make stored data programmable by applications rather than treated as an external add on. The practical idea is that apps can reference and manage stored blobs with onchain logic, including rules around renewals and access patterns. That is not a small UX detail. It is Walrus admitting that long-term storage is not a one time action. It is a relationship that needs renewals, payment logic, and clear incentives, or users drift away.
Here is where the “resilience over convenience” part becomes concrete. Walrus leans on erasure coding rather than simply copying the whole file everywhere. In its own documentation, it describes an approach where storage overhead is around five times the original blob size, while still being robust against failures compared to naive replication or partial replication schemes. The Walrus whitepaper frames the same core goal: get very high resilience with relatively low overhead by using erasure codes that scale across many storage nodes, while using the blockchain for coordination and incentives rather than building a custom chain for storage itself.
If you have never dealt with storage systems, the key investor takeaway is this: resilience is not free. You pay for redundancy, coordination, audits, and incentives. You also pay with UX friction, because the network has to do more work than a single cloud provider would. Even general academic surveys of decentralized storage point out the availability and redundancy angle as a core feature, not an optional extra. And the flip side is also widely acknowledged: distributed retrieval can introduce higher latency than centralized systems, which hits user experience directly. That latency is where retention gets tested. Users forgive “decentralized” once. They do not forgive it every day.
A real-life example, from the trader brain: imagine a game that mints onchain items, but hosts item images and 3D models on a single server to keep things fast. That server goes down, or the company runs out of money, or it just stops caring. The chain still shows you own the item, but the item looks like a broken icon. Markets keep trading it for a while, then liquidity dries up because nobody trusts the experience. The failure is not financial. It is emotional. People feel tricked. That is the retention problem showing up as a price chart later.
Now put market data in its proper place: not as the opening story, but as the scoreboard. As of February 3, 2026, CoinMarketCap shows WAL around $0.094 with roughly $16M in 24 hour volume, a market cap around $152M, and circulating supply near 1.61B with a max supply of 5B. CoinGecko’s market cap view is broadly similar, reinforcing that the market is valuing Walrus as a mid cap infrastructure bet rather than a tiny experimental token. For traders, that liquidity matters because infrastructure narratives can move fast, but they also mean you can get chopped if you ignore whether usage is actually sticking.
The other important timestamp is not today’s price. It is when the network became real enough to be measured. Walrus announced its public mainnet launch on March 27, 2025, positioning itself as a decentralized storage network developed as a second major protocol after Mysten Labs. Around that period, CoinDesk reported a $140M token sale ahead of mainnet. That kind of capital is a double edged signal. It buys runway and integrations, but it also raises the bar for retention. Money can attract builders. It cannot force users to stay.
So what should an investor actually watch, beyond the story? The hard part is that decentralized storage does not win by being pretty. It wins when renewals become routine. When apps keep paying to store and serve data month after month. When retrieval works under load, not just in demos. When developers stop using Walrus as a marketing badge and start using it as default infrastructure because outages are more expensive than slightly slower fetches.
That is also the cleanest “unique angle” for traders: retention is the bridge between tech and token. Storage networks do not live or die on one upload. They live on repeated renewals and repeated retrievals. If you want long-term involvement instead of short term excitement, treat Walrus like a subscription economy. The best signal is not a spike in mentions. It is a steady base of paid storage, predictable renewal behavior, and integrations that stay live through quiet markets.
If you are trading WAL, do the unsexy work. Track whether real apps are storing real user-facing assets. Watch for evidence that developers are automating renewals and building around programmable storage instead of treating it as a sidecar. Compare Walrus against other storage plays like Filecoin, Arweave, and Storj on the only question that matters: do users keep showing up after the first try.
Because convenience gets you the first click. Resilience earns the second month. And the second month is where retention becomes real, revenue becomes real, and the “infrastructure” label stops being a pitch and starts being a business.
@Walrus 🦭/acc 🦭/acc$WAL #walrus

Plasma is the experience that the crypto world has absorbed
the ability to create an accountant-friendly system and not a trader-friendly
one.

The majority of new chains promote speed, low prices, and
larger ecosystem. Plasma is more serious and silent: it is focused on
developing stable-coin rails that would be able to support the real-world
activity. It implies that the chain must be predictable, durable to abuse, and
conformable enough to be regulated by law-abiding firms and easy enough to not
require an everyday user to master gas. By interpreting Plasma in that way, it
no longer appears to me like another Layer-1 but, instead, a payments system
that is, however, based on the blockchain.

Fee charges are not the actual issue that Plasma is solving,
but rather operational friction.

Stablecoins are already in operation: daily, people send
USDT across the borders. The problem is the operations tax that envelops such
transfers. Users must have different gas tokens, they fear congestion and
support services must justify to someone why he cannot send $10 since they only
have 0.23 of gas. Plasma considers that a failure of the product, and not a
failure of the user.

The solution by Plasma is a protocol-managed, chain-native
relayer/paymaster which renders the transfers of USDT gasless. The Relayer API
regulates the size: it only sponsors direct transfers of stablecoins. The scope
helps Plasma to make free transfers sustainable and avoid spamming. It also
enforces identity-conscious restrictions and harsh guidelines of sponsorship to
prevent abuse rather than implying that free gas is magically harmless.

Zero-fee can only be believable when you tell how and who to
pay to prevent abuse.

Several projects offer a promise of zero fees as though the
validators will pass through it. The docs and FAQ of plasma give a picture of
reality: the protocol has a managed paymaster to pay the gas in transfers of
USDT to ensure that users do not always need native tokens. The structure is to
make micropayments, remittance and business frictionless.

The philosophy behind the products is implicitly evident,
the target market of Plasma is not intended to be a group of crypto-native
users who enjoy complexity. Rather, it is centered on payment flows in which
the sender is not supposed to know anything about which network he/she is on.
That simplicity is an attribute, not an injury in payments.

The compliance strategy of Plasma is not a privacy theater,
it provides actual, ship ready privacy.

In contrast to the crypto privacy discussion that is usually
divided into the extreme of transparency and complete secrecy, Plasma is formed
in the middle. It is user-friendly in terms of composing confidential data yet
auditable to the extent of real businesses.

The purported Confidential Payments documents of the chain
render the purpose and the scope clear: they facilitate the transfers under the
guarantee of secrecy without the introduction of new wallets, made-to-order
tokens, and alterations to the fundamental EVM functionality. They note that it
is not a complete privacy chain and it is a lightweight and opt-in feature.

The fact that framing is important, since it describes the
reality of institutions: not only must they be privy to customer and trade
data, but they must also have audit trails, monitoring, and governance. The
approach taken by Plasma is rather a product to be implemented, rather than
argued.

The Elliptic relationship informs you of the client that
Plasma is developing.

To understand how serious a chain is about regulated
adoption, the thing that you should consider is its integrations rather than
its tweets. Plasma collaborated with Elliptic to provide AML, KYC and KYT
coverage provided throughout the network, under real time monitoring and
scalable compliance.

This is a critical point of view: compliance is not a
bolt-on. It is considered by plasma as a first-class requirement of stable-coin
rails. A plausible compliance narrative is a necessity and not a luxury on the
part of a digital dollar mover. Payment firms and fintechs that are required to
pass audits are putting their money on the line.

Liquidity-at-genesis is not hype it is the veiled
requirement of usefulness of stable-coins.

The majority of the chains are launched, followed by
pursuing liquidity. Plasma flips that order. In its mainnet beta announcement,
it reported that the network becomes live on September 25, 2025, together with
XPL, and that there is $2B of stablecoins active in the first act of over 100
DeFi partners.

This is not merely important because the impressive number
is required by payment systems to act in a predictable manner. When liquidity
is thin, merchants/wallets/neobanks experience slippage, unreliable rates, and
a poor user experience. The liquidity-first position of plasma eliminates the
initial vulnerability and allows using the chain in practice right away.

Plasma One announces that it is distribution rather than
ideology that is end.

Even an ideal chain cannot work if it is never touched by
the users. The solution to the distribution front by Plasma is Plasma One: a
stable-native neobank product to save, spend, transfer, and earn money.

The page of plasma one clearly mentions that it is a fintech
product, not a bank. In effect, the plastica One Card is a Visa acceptance card
that is licensed by Signify Holdings and used to make real-world purchases.

What I noticed is that it puts their users in a security
state: it does not require seeds but has access to hardware-powered keys and
introduces instant card freezing, spending, and real-time alerts, and even
retains self-custody of digital dollars.

This is not mere marketing but it also addresses the largest
UX pain in crypto. Self-custody puts power into the hands of the users but seed
phrases are a nightmare to mainstream adoption. When properly implemented,
hardware-based key flows will make self-custody the new device security and not
a paper backup.

The reason why the "payments stack" narrative is
the one that should be more important than the L1 narrative.

When I make a step further, Plasma will be more like a full
payments system, a gasless transfer of USDT, a compliance layer to regulated
participants, a verifiable opt-in confidentiality system, and a consumer
surface (Plasma One) that converts stablecoins into spendable money.

This contextualization of the so-called stablecoin-native
contracts is important. It isn’t a gimmick. It claims that stablecoins are the
main product and the rest are there to make them play like actual money.

The appealing aspect of Plasma is that it is open to
trade-offs. Plasma maintains its scope unlike the other projects that are
promising to offer solutions to all. Gasless sponsorship includes only
particular stablecoin transactions, privacy is a choice and not complete
privacy, and compliance is also embedded in the program, rather than an
after-market feature. This kind of discipline is not common in crypto, but
typically an indicator that the developer cares about reliability and not
applause.

The big bet: the stablecoins will succeed by becoming
uninteresting. The internet became successful not due to flashy routers but
they became invisible. The architecture of plasma is of this kind: one can
transfer digital dollars with barely any thought on the part of the user,
provide the institutions with the required monitoring and controls, and convert
the on-chain value into spending in the real world through a card that is
compatible with the present language of the world.

In case the Plasma is successful, the result will not be a
meme cycle. It will be the silent stabilization of stablecoins as being normal,
since the rail beneath them has finally started to act like a normal
infrastructure.

#plasma @Plasma

$XPL

Dusk is not constructing a privacy coin but fair markets
Majority of the citizens believe in privacy chain as a secret. Dusk Network desires something different. It is developing infrastructure in the market that allows real trading to occur without exposing any data that would destroy fairness. Trades in regular markets remain confidential until the time they settle. With publicity of trades before settlement, big traders might be picked off, little traders might be imitated and the markets might become very unpredictable. That is what a lot of open blockchains resemble nowadays.
After many years of development, the mainnet of Dusk was launched on 7 January 2025, and the project positioned it as the beginning of an open financial system in which you can never share sensitive information but still be able to prove something when you need to. It is not the aspect of concealing everything. The idea is to conceal the right things such as positions, order sizes and identities and still be able to provide proofs to be audited, rules and settlement.
This paper takes a new perspective of Dusk: market fairness. Not privacy because privacy, but privacy as the aspect that is lacking in making on-chain markets a first come first served game.
The actual issue: information leakage makes markets games.
In a normal public blockchain, the market information disseminates all over. When trades are in an open mempool, individuals can observe them, replicate them, leapfrog them or push the price in their direction. Your plan even when you are not engaging in bad things becomes exposed. That renders serious trading prohibitive. It also drives institutions backward to the privacy systems.
The bet made by Dusk is straightforward: in order that you have regulated assets and stablecoin reserves, and large trades can occur on-chain, you must have a chain where the intention of all is not revealed by default. Privacy in this case is not a philosophical feature. It is market hygiene.
Two forms of transactions: open when you please, private when you have to.
The settlement layer of Dusk maintains two types of transactions over the same network one transparent and the other shielded. Simply put, it implies that the chain is capable of supporting the activities in which it is helpful to be open, and also support the activities in which it is necessary to maintain secrecy to ensure that the markets are not biased.
The shielded model employs the zero-knowledge style proofs to ensure that the network is still able to check the reality that funds are legitimate and not spent twice yet still remain unaware of the sender, receiver and the amount of money being transferred. Simultaneously, the approach of Dusk allows managing the methods of information disclosure in the future, when they can be demanded by a regulator, auditor, or counterparty. This evidence where it counts is what is at the heart of the way Dusk attempts to serve finance without transforming the chain into a surveillance machine.
It is not just fairness of traders. It's also about validators
The second place of market manipulation is the one of people who build blocks. The validators in most proof-of-stake systems are publicly identifiable and are easy to attack. Provided you can find validators, you can bully them, bribe them, censure them, or put them under observation.
The consensus system of Dusk has a leader selection concept, which is a blind-bid: block producers place bids in a form that is not visible during the selection process to help discourage the practice of watching or gaming the process. This is explained in the consensus design work of Dusk (Proof-of- Blind Bidding into their agreement process). What matters more than the buzzwords is that Dusk attempts to make it less predictable and less visible - predictability gives attack surfaces, so that predictability has a detrimental effect on it.
A system that is less prone to bullying is obtained when you combine private transactions and a consensus process whereby public targeting is minimized. In the case of regulated finance, that is important. When markets are pressure riddled, then they are unreliable.
Lightspeed: Ethereum-style applications, and reconciled on Dusk.
One of the key reasons why privacy chains fall is because the developers do not relocate. Dusk attempts to eliminate that barrier with a Solidity-compatible execution layer (Lightspeed / DuskEVM) to allow Solidity developers to run in the usual way, but the settlement transpires on the base chain at Dusk.
This is important to fairness, as it allows builders to write the apps that look normal in the market, but in balances, trade flow, and sensitive logic, apply privacy features where they are needed. That is, Dusk does not request the world to study an entirely new stack in order to achieve confidential markets.
The underestimated article: official market statistics, not guesses of the crowd.
Markets still require reliable inputs even in the case of private execution, in particular, regulated markets. Market data and price feeds are not ornamentation. Settlement, margin, reporting, and basic truth all are based on them.
This is why the reason why Dusk adopted Chainlink standards is a bigger concern than it seems. Dusk announced that it is integrating Chainlink CCIP, and DataLink and Data Streams, namely to transfer regulated securities on-chain using verified exchange data.
In simple words:
Dusk is telling you, you cannot trust random oracles and vibes, to give you compliant markets. You must have official grade data pipes.
DataLink is positioned as official exchange data delivered on-chain and Data Streams as low latency updates to trading grade applications. It is a new axis most individuals overlook: Dusk is attempting to establish not only personal markets, but high-integrity markets.
Bridges do not only provide access but determine the circulation of liquidity.
Dusk regards interoperability as being fundamental to the market. Physical assets and liquidity do not remain in one chain. Ecosystems spread their capital and users and strategies.
Therefore, the key to Dusk lies in the cross-chain interoperability. We will also endeavor to ensure the portability of assets using CCIP-style messaging and standards without forming risky and improvised bridges. In practice, Dusk has the ability to be a secret settlement node and other chains can provide different sources of liquidity and applications.
It is a solid institutional story: Find a place to settle, to be safe and obedient; make a connection where there already is capital.
Hyperstaking: transforming staking to programmable finance.
One more insidious change of infrastructure is hyperstaking-stake abstraction. Instead of human beings performing the process of staking manually, smart contracts can perform the process of staking, unstaking, and reward routing automatically.
The utilities of practice are automated staking pools, liquid staking models, and turnkey yield solutions which serve as real financial infrastructure, not hobbyist. Dusk has core building blocks, despite not being about staking, automation, rules, and predictable behavior.
Institutions should have stable systems and not the ad hoc click and hope solutions.
Why this matters now
Dusk holds the view that public chains fail in the markets not due to openness, but that of being too transparent. The market becomes an extraction machine of strategies when all the actions can be seen in advance when they are made. Dusk maintains confidentiality when it is necessary and gives any proofs when it is required by law and trust.
The introduction of the 2025 mainnet provided the groundwork. New elements, such as EVM compatibility, official data rails based on Chainlink standards and strong interoperability position, make Dusk more closely resemble a scalable finance platform.
Conclusion
One should not consider Dusk as a privacy coin with a new set of features, but a chain that recreates the market structure on on-chain finance. It conceals what should not be disclosed to ensure the fairness of the market, it gives evidence where it is stipulated according to the law, it does not depend on weak bridges with the rest of the crypto environment.
Dusk will bring more than just private transactions in case it is successful. What will be found is the creation of markets, which are functioning in a way similar to real markets: where information is not being weaponised on a daily basis, and the ability to comply is not being added after the damage has been done. # @Dusk

Majority of the citizens believe in privacy chain as a
secret. Dusk Network desires something different. It is developing
infrastructure in the market that allows real trading to occur without exposing
any data that would destroy fairness. Trades in regular markets remain
confidential until the time they settle. With publicity of trades before
settlement, big traders might be picked off, little traders might be imitated
and the markets might become very unpredictable. That is what a lot of open
blockchains resemble nowadays.

After many years of development, the mainnet of Dusk was
launched on 7 January 2025, and the project positioned it as the beginning of
an open financial system in which you can never share sensitive information but
still be able to prove something when you need to. It is not the aspect of
concealing everything. The idea is to conceal the right things such as
positions, order sizes and identities and still be able to provide proofs to be
audited, rules and settlement.

This paper takes a new perspective of Dusk: market fairness.
Not privacy because privacy, but privacy as the aspect that is lacking in
making on-chain markets a first come first served game.

The actual issue: information leakage makes markets games.

In a normal public blockchain, the market information
disseminates all over. When trades are in an open mempool, individuals can
observe them, replicate them, leapfrog them or push the price in their
direction. Your plan even when you are not engaging in bad things becomes
exposed. That renders serious trading prohibitive. It also drives institutions
backward to the privacy systems.

The bet made by Dusk is straightforward: in order that you
have regulated assets and stablecoin reserves, and large trades can occur
on-chain, you must have a chain where the intention of all is not revealed by
default. Privacy in this case is not a philosophical feature. It is market
hygiene.

Two forms of transactions: open when you please, private
when you have to.

The settlement layer of Dusk maintains two types of
transactions over the same network one transparent and the other shielded.
Simply put, it implies that the chain is capable of supporting the activities
in which it is helpful to be open, and also support the activities in which it
is necessary to maintain secrecy to ensure that the markets are not biased.

The shielded model employs the zero-knowledge style proofs
to ensure that the network is still able to check the reality that funds are
legitimate and not spent twice yet still remain unaware of the sender, receiver
and the amount of money being transferred. Simultaneously, the approach of Dusk
allows managing the methods of information disclosure in the future, when they
can be demanded by a regulator, auditor, or counterparty. This evidence where
it counts is what is at the heart of the way Dusk attempts to serve finance
without transforming the chain into a surveillance machine.

It is not just fairness of traders. It's also about
validators

The second place of market manipulation is the one of people
who build blocks. The validators in most proof-of-stake systems are publicly
identifiable and are easy to attack. Provided you can find validators, you can
bully them, bribe them, censure them, or put them under observation.

The consensus system of Dusk has a leader selection concept,
which is a blind-bid: block producers place bids in a form that is not visible
during the selection process to help discourage the practice of watching or
gaming the process. This is explained in the consensus design work of Dusk
(Proof-of- Blind Bidding into their agreement process). What matters more than
the buzzwords is that Dusk attempts to make it less predictable and less
visible - predictability gives attack surfaces, so that predictability has a
detrimental effect on it.

A system that is less prone to bullying is obtained when you
combine private transactions and a consensus process whereby public targeting
is minimized. In the case of regulated finance, that is important. When markets
are pressure riddled, then they are unreliable.

Lightspeed: Ethereum-style applications, and reconciled on
Dusk.

One of the key reasons why privacy chains fall is because
the developers do not relocate. Dusk attempts to eliminate that barrier with a
Solidity-compatible execution layer (Lightspeed / DuskEVM) to allow Solidity
developers to run in the usual way, but the settlement transpires on the base
chain at Dusk.

This is important to fairness, as it allows builders to
write the apps that look normal in the market, but in balances, trade flow, and
sensitive logic, apply privacy features where they are needed. That is, Dusk
does not request the world to study an entirely new stack in order to achieve
confidential markets.

The underestimated article: official market statistics, not
guesses of the crowd.

Markets still require reliable inputs even in the case of
private execution, in particular, regulated markets. Market data and price
feeds are not ornamentation. Settlement, margin, reporting, and basic truth all
are based on them.

This is why the reason why Dusk adopted Chainlink standards
is a bigger concern than it seems. Dusk announced that it is integrating
Chainlink CCIP, and DataLink and Data Streams, namely to transfer regulated
securities on-chain using verified exchange data.

In simple words:

Dusk is telling you, you cannot trust random oracles and
vibes, to give you compliant markets. You must have official grade data pipes.

DataLink is positioned as official exchange data delivered
on-chain and Data Streams as low latency updates to trading grade applications.
It is a new axis most individuals overlook: Dusk is attempting to establish not
only personal markets, but high-integrity markets.

Bridges do not only provide access but determine the
circulation of liquidity.

Dusk regards interoperability as being fundamental to the
market. Physical assets and liquidity do not remain in one chain. Ecosystems
spread their capital and users and strategies.

Therefore, the key to Dusk lies in the cross-chain
interoperability. We will also endeavor to ensure the portability of assets
using CCIP-style messaging and standards without forming risky and improvised
bridges. In practice, Dusk has the ability to be a secret settlement node and
other chains can provide different sources of liquidity and applications.

It is a solid institutional story: Find a place to settle,
to be safe and obedient; make a connection where there already is capital.

Hyperstaking: transforming staking to programmable finance.

One more insidious change of infrastructure is
hyperstaking-stake abstraction. Instead of human beings performing the process
of staking manually, smart contracts can perform the process of staking,
unstaking, and reward routing automatically.

The utilities of practice are automated staking pools,
liquid staking models, and turnkey yield solutions which serve as real
financial infrastructure, not hobbyist. Dusk has core building blocks, despite
not being about staking, automation, rules, and predictable behavior.

Institutions should have stable systems and not the ad hoc
click and hope solutions.

Why this matters now

Dusk holds the view that public chains fail in the markets
not due to openness, but that of being too transparent. The market becomes an
extraction machine of strategies when all the actions can be seen in advance
when they are made. Dusk maintains confidentiality when it is necessary and
gives any proofs when it is required by law and trust.

The introduction of the 2025 mainnet provided the
groundwork. New elements, such as EVM compatibility, official data rails based
on Chainlink standards and strong interoperability position, make Dusk more
closely resemble a scalable finance platform.

Conclusion

One should not consider Dusk as a privacy coin with a new
set of features, but a chain that recreates the market structure on on-chain
finance. It conceals what should not be disclosed to ensure the fairness of the
market, it gives evidence where it is stipulated according to the law, it does
not depend on weak bridges with the rest of the crypto environment.

Dusk will bring more than just private transactions in case
it is successful. What will be found is the creation of markets, which are
functioning in a way similar to real markets: where information is not being
weaponised on a daily basis, and the ability to comply is not being added after
the damage has been done.

#Dusk
@Dusk_Foundation

The majority of crypto-discussions are noisy with arguments on the purity of decentralization, TPS wars, and slick features. However, something more basic is the actual slayer of usage, cost uncertainty. Maybe you have ever constructed some type of building on a chain where charges can vary between nearly free and why is this costing me 18 dollars in one day? Your app is blamed by the users. Helpdesk inundated. Your team can’t budget. Unless you build automated jobs, bots, background tasks, AI agents, random fees put hard stops in.
The essence of vanar is nearly banal: stabilize the base price of transaction - make it stable, predictable, manageable by a builder in a spreadsheet and rely on it.
The gas market tax of the invisible hand corrects the most beneficial apps.
It is reasonable to consider gas auctions: when you compare blockspace to holiday airline seats, the highest bidder gets in. That prototype is inhuman to applications that look into the future. Micropayments, streaming payments, in-game moves, social apps, machine-to-machine automation, all prefer doing thousands of transactions a day when they are not bidding.
Even the average fee is not the worst aspect. It’s the uncertainty. In a fee market that goes on the spiral, minor motions cease to have meaning. A $0.05 action becomes a $2 action. Users do not care why - they leave. The ecosystem is then changed to fewer, larger transactions, which is precisely the opposite of what mass adoption should be.
Vanar is attempting a reverse of that, not hype, but a protocol-level architecture: fixed fees to a fiat value.
The fixed-fee model by Vanar: pegged to a USD target, controlled at the protocol level.
According to the documentation provided by Vanar, a system progressively maintains user-facing costs at stable fiat levels, to be more precise, aiming at $0.0005 per transaction. This is not “fixed in VANRY.” It translates it as this act will cost approximately this many dollars, even when token prices get changed.
To do so, Vanar releases a USD/VANRY price mechanism (a token) and claims that the protocol changes the price periodically, based on market information. It also authenticates the market price in a variety of sources, i.e., DEXs, CEXs, data providers, i.e., the number is not being provided by a single compromised feed.
Such a design choice is more than it seems. In regular chains, your commission is nothing but a weather report. In the model of Vanar, the fee is nearer to a posted price - a toll road, which is not going to start charging 50x due to a rise in traffic.
Why not a fairness talk is good enough why not FIFO ordering?
The model of transaction-processing is also a part of the fee model at Vanar: the First-In-First-Out (FIFO) model. On gas auction chains, order taking is transformed into a marketplace. People pay to jump the line. That brings in the whole set of strategies front-running, bidding wars, priority games all of which are not requested by the normal users.
FIFO is an unobtrusive sentence: You only do not need to play games to be part of it. Practically, it renders the inclusion of transactions more of a service, rather than a casino. This ordering philosophy is important, in case your app is to be payment infrastructure. It simplifies the prediction, explanation and auditing of outcomes.
Predictable charge is not merely a win in terms of UX, it is an anti-spam weapon, provided that it is created rightly.
At this point appears a just rebuttal: "When charges are small and constant, will not spam be cheap? The solution that Vanar proposes is to introduce predictability to tiering, such that day-to-day transactions are cheap, and abusive behavior is costly. The framing of the model by the community and ecosystem posts is that cheap to use normally, and expensive to use in large spamming.
This is significant in the sense that spam protection is normally handled independently of pricing. But they’re linked. When a chain is interested in low fees, it should design what occurs in case somebody floods the system. Tiering fundamentally is: We do subsidize normal life, but not attacks.
Put simply, Vanar is attempting to make a fee landscape that would seem like a city: walking is pleasant, there is normal traffic, but in the event that you attempt to drive a hundred trucks through a narrow street at the same time, you will pay a fee to disrupt the traffic.
The more profound justification of this model to the Vanar agent economy story.
This is the broader perspective that is not generic: machines are most concerned with predictable fees, rather than the vast majority of humans. Humans can pause and decide. Machines act continuously.
Suppose that Vanar is right in his more general thesis that autonomous agents will make payments, revise state, pay small debts, and do compliance tests automatically, then machine budgeting must be supported by the chain. Agents do not work well when one of the core costs has become irrational. In which case, a USD-pegged fee structure is a prerequisite to the role of an agent future, rather than the agent future, nice to have.
It is also the reason why the design is more fintech than crypto. Fintech systems are still alive, as they are capable of quoting costs, predicting costs and explaining costs. The fee model by Vanar attempts to inject some sense of normalcy with on-chain execution.
Slow release, heavy-validator, and designed with the aim of maintaining the network: the token emissions and incentives.
The other aspect of fee stability is: in case users pay small fees, who protects the chain? In the documentation provided by vanar, there will be a long-term emission plan based on block rewards; the average rate of inflation is given over a long period, and harsher initial emissions are mentioned to promote the development of the ecosystem and initial staking rewards.
The whitepaper and materials also outline a token allocation where validator rewards are considerably higher, and other sections of the allocation are dedicated to the development and community incentives, and it specifically states that the team does not have any token allocation.
The choice of a token model is subjective. In terms of concept, the strategy of Vanar is operation continuity and network incentives which enables the chain to act as infrastructure.
What most people fail to appreciate is the pricing that can be relied upon by the builders.
Vanar fee strategy is not so cheap, but its primary advantage is that it is predictable.
The price of a product can be determined by a builder. A team may assure an experience to a user. Costs can be forecasted by a finance department. It can be understood even by non- crypto partners. The docs by Vanar explain fixed fees as an instrument of accurate cost predictions, budgets, and predictable behavior in peak seasons.
This is important since the subsequent round of adoption will not be by crypto enthusiasts, but by individuals who do not enjoy complexity but require a stable means of value and data transfer.
The actual challenge: is Vanar able to remain consistent and at the same time, be strong?
A fixed-fee model will pass or fail on the detail of implementation. The system (price-update) should be robust. The tiering must be in a way that prevents spam and does not negatively affect honest high volume apps. The chain should be able to last when under tension. It should be demonstrated that the network is credible in its measuring of market price and the frequency of updates since it lies on the trust contract with the builders. The token-price feed is described on the docs of Vanar as multi-source-validated, an encouraging fact, as on single-source the truth is a frequent cause of failure.
Should Vanar win, it will provide a luxury in crypto the assurance that real product can be constructed without the fear of touching the base layer.
What is so good about Vanar that makes him worth watching.
A number of chains have an ambitious goal to be the future. Vanar is in search of usability, the future of infrastructure. An experiment that has predictable charges, a reasonable costs of ordering, and unaffordable attack costs silently turns experiments into consistent systems. This is not spin, it is preparation in design. The discipline of designing is what survives when the market is no longer cheering but is requiring reliability.
@Vanarchain-1
$VANRY

Bracia/Siostry, obudziłem się rano i sprawdziłem $WAL jako pierwszy po wypiciu kawy... Dziś znowu spadło trochę, cena oscyluje między ~$0.091-$0.095 (widzę to na CoinMarketCap + CoinGecko ~$0.092-0.094, spadek o -3% do -6% w ciągu 24 godzin, kapitalizacja rynkowa ~$146M-$152M). Wolumen jest dobry ~$15M-$18M, ale spadł o -25%+ w zeszłym tygodniu. Wszyscy mówią, że rynek niedźwiedzi + presja sprzedaży wzrosła po zakończeniu kampanii.
Ale myślę, że to jest przesadna reakcja. Walrus to projekt Mysten Labs, zbudowany na Sui dla zdecentralizowanego przechowywania/blobów. Dane do treningu modeli AI, duże pliki wideo/obrazy, media NFT – wszystko można przechowywać w łańcuchu super tanio, zabezpieczone dowodem dostępności. W erze agentów AI + monetyzacji danych, takie projekty DePIN + Storage stają się coraz bardziej przydatne. ওর

Cross-border dollar flows have historically been slow, costly, and fragmented. Traditional payment channels rely on multiple layers of intermediaries, have limited operating hours, are geographically constrained, and settlement delays can last for hours or even days. Even in today's digital world, global dollar flows still bear the marks of the analog era. Plasma's vision stems from a simple belief: the flow of digital dollars should be as fast as the internet, not as slow as traditional finance.
Plasma aims to be the infrastructure layer for the global digital dollar flow. Unlike universal blockchains that view stablecoins as one of many use cases, Plasma places stablecoins at the core of its design. This shift in priority changes everything. When stablecoins are seen as core infrastructure rather than secondary assets, blockchains can be optimized for reliability, throughput, predictable costs, and continuous settlement, which is exactly what global capital flow requires.
Plasma's vision is about scale. The scale of global dollar flow is vast and continuous: payments, remittances, payroll, capital operations, and inter-institutional settlements never cease. Plasma's design goal is to process thousands of transactions per second without congestion or fee fluctuations. Unlike NFTs, meme coins, or speculative trades competing for block space, Plasma prioritizes stablecoin transfers. This ensures stable performance even during periods of high demand, which is crucial for any system aimed at facilitating global capital flow.
Security is another cornerstone of Plasma. Global dollar flow requires trust, especially in the case of large transactions. Plasma anchors its settlement to Bitcoin, which is currently the most secure and decentralized blockchain. By building on Bitcoin's proven security model, Plasma ensures that stablecoin transactions are ultimately based on a foundation with a long and robust track record. This is particularly important for institutions and enterprises that require strict guarantees of finality and settlement integrity. Plasma's vision also recognizes that global capital flow must be convenient. Full compatibility with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) allows existing Ethereum-based applications, wallets, and financial tools to be deployed on Plasma without rewriting code. This lowers the threshold for developers and accelerates the development of the ecosystem. At the same time, users benefit from a familiar interface and access to a network optimized for stablecoin activity rather than speculative congestion.
Cost predictability plays a crucial role in Plasma's design. In many blockchains, fees can fluctuate wildly based on unrelated activities, making it unsuitable for everyday payments. Plasma introduces a custom gas model that aligns with stablecoin use cases, achieving predictable, and in some cases even zero-fee transfers. This reflects real-world financial expectations, where users do not consider network fees with each transfer. By eliminating friction in the payment layer, Plasma enables digital dollars to be applicable for everyday and large-scale applications.
Beyond individual transactions, Plasma's vision also extends to institutions, fintech platforms, and global enterprises. Stablecoins are increasingly being applied in cross-border settlements, capital management, and on-chain liquidity. Plasma provides an environment that enables these activities to occur continuously, transparently, and at scale. Shielded transactions further ensure financial privacy when necessary, balancing transparency and caution in regulatory and enterprise application scenarios.
Plasma's goal is not to replace all blockchains or financial systems. Its aim is more specific, and therefore more powerful. Plasma is committed to becoming the default settlement channel for digital dollars, achieving seamless operation around the clock and globally, eliminating any boundaries or unnecessary friction. By combining Bitcoin-level security, stablecoin-prioritized architecture, scalable performance, and compatibility with the EVM, Plasma looks to the future, where global dollar transfers will be as easy, instant, reliable, and always online as sending data.
@Plasma #Plasma #xpl

Many crypto initiatives discuss the idea of taking
real-world assets on-chain, yet most of the readers are not aware of what it
actually looks like in practice. Real markets are not just dealings. They need
documents of issues, investors, transfer limitations, corporate practices,
settlement regulations, reporting obligations, and protection of liability. In
case any of these items are not present, the asset is not really a tokenized
one; it is just a token that has disguised itself as a security.

Privacy is not the most outstanding contribution made by
Dusk. It provides a blockchain in which the regulations are stored within each
asset, and sensitive data are not disclosed. The emphasis puts Dusk nearer to
market infrastructure compared to the usual DeFi.

The chain is a privacy blockchain, which is regulated
finance, and it is meant to take institutional workflows to the blockchain
without compromising compliance or performance.

The aspect that most people overlook is the angle of asset
standard: XSC is meant as the template of the contract regulating securities.

A lot of chains compete to lure issuers using illusory
sales. The evening lures them with a strict criterion.

The Confidential Security Contract (XSC) by Dusk is a
structure of developing and issuing privacy-enabled tokenized securities. This
is important since securities are not mere tokens; they have regulations on
ownership, transfer, and on how the dividends or votes will be paid out or the
redemption.

The even greater insight is that compliance is not an
external process only. You minimize off-chain enforcement by coding rules of
transfer and disclosure into asset contract logic. The compliance rules coexist
within the protocol layer, and not an add-on as indicated in the messaging of
Dusk.

Consider that XSC will be like ERC-20, except that it
contains privacy and solid regulations designed into the core.

Why this is important: regulated markets are based on
privacy and not publicity.

Equity markets do not publish the balance of all investors
and their wallet address. Complete disclosure by default would make
surveillance be on a strategic position.

According to the Dusk system of confidential securities,
asset-level confidentiality rather than transfers-only confidentiality is
required to get serious issuers and investors on-chain. It is not the crypto
promise of everything always open that it has.

That is why Dusk continues to insist on the markets in which
the asset can be exchanged and stored on-chain and the sensitive information is
maintained. It is not all about secrecy as an end in itself, it is about the
privacy inherent in normal finances, and yet providing the necessary proofs.

The infrastructure aspect: Dusk has a modular stack, where
DuskDS is the bottom

Another interesting change in the documentation is the
documentation of the architecture as being modular.

They introduce DuskDS as the settlement, consensus as well
as data-availability layer to the layer of several execution environments.
DuskVM and DuskEVM are constructed using it. It is an institutional approach
rather than a technical choice.

Organisations do not wish to put all their eggs in one
virtual machine. Their desires are permanent settlement and adherence at the
base, engines of executions capable of evolving with the change of tools. This
is provided by DuskDS, along with some fundamental constituents such as Rusk
(node implementation) and Kadcast (networking) as well as transfer and staking
genesis contracts.

Speaking of the most recent addition to Dusk, this modular
strategy is a good indication: they are constructing a financial platform, and
not a one-purpose chain.

Security is not an advisory, rather a necessity

Reliability in the context of DeFi culture is usually not a
requirement until something goes wrong. Such tolerance is not tolerated in
institutional systems. Buggy validator or a deployment failure is not an
inconvenience, but a legal and operational crisis.

The operator documentation of Dusk explains that slashing is
an actual punitive mechanism with the threat of receiving less stake by
submitting invalid blocks or going dead. The network update describes slashing
hard and soft which is meant to discourage unproductive behavior.

Such a change takes Dusk out of the rubric of friendly
staking and into the realm of professional responsibility. It is structured to
penalize low performance, which fits the target market of Dusk: the financial
processes which cannot withstand unreliable infrastructure.

The long-term security planning, not the hype.

The documentation which Dusk provides is grounded in one of
the most sensible ways, its supply plan.

They declare an initial supply of 500M DUSK (previously an
ERC-20/BEP-20 token before the migration), with additional 500M issued over 36
years due to staking rewards and the maximum supply is 1 billion DUSK.

You may like inflation or not, the form is clear: Dusk will
fund its security long, not short and aggressive bursts. That is what
constitutes a market infrastructure. The stock exchanges and settlement systems
do not operate on a twelve week cycle, but on a twenty-five year basis.

In case Dusk really wants to host controlled issuance and
secondary trading, its security model should not be isolated to a specific hype
cycle. An extended emission plan conveys that clearly.

The angle of adoption that is real: the concept of
controlled exchange partnerships are not a desirable good but an end.

The most practical advancement of Dusk in the real world is
its association with controlled securities markets.

In March 2024, it was announced by VentureBeat that Dusk and
the Dutch Exchange NPEX are working together to establish a blockchain-based
securities exchange which will be regulated and be interested in tokenized
securities. A year later, in April 2025, Dusk announced it would collaborate
with 21X, which was granted a DLT-TSS license under the European regulations,
allowing an all-tokenized securities market, and the partnership is packaged as
regulation-oriented.

Such collaborations are significant as they represent the
messiness of the regulated adoption: the purchase of licenses, the negotiation
of exemptions, and the interaction with the real market players. It is not just
the launch of a dApp and the expectation of liquidity to emerge. The adoption
is being done slowly, in a procedural manner, and based on credibility.

In this case, assuming Dusk is successful, it will probably
do so by treading along orthodox paths: controlled venues, compliant issuers of
assets and settlement processes that may not appear to be exciting, but gets
the actual value moving.

You may have a real-life image in the form of a personal
bond that you can issue on-chain and have the list of investors that is not on
the internet.

Suppose that it is a small or medium-sized company wishing
to issue a bond. In conventional finance, a list of investors remains
confidential, coupon payments are made on a regular basis, transfers can only
take place among qualified individuals, regulators may demand records and
accountants may check accounting.

The direction of the company Dusk, dubbed as the direction
towards confidential securities, should enable the entire workflow to be native
to a blockchain environment. The asset can have embedded compliance rules
provided using a security contract standard, such as XSC. The network has a
base layer that is designed based on the settlement and compliance requirements
to offer finality and reliability and also offer various execution environments
based on the application requirements.

It is that mix that is the actual new story to tell. Dusk is
not attempting to put everyone nameless.

It is attempting to enable regulated issuance and trading
in-chain without transform all those sensitive details into entertainment and
make them public.

The actual question of future is easy; will the ecosystem
create the market products in support of the infrastructure?

Dusk has numerous features that go hand in hand with what
projects purport to desire: a place in regulated finance, a security token
standard story, a modular architecture story, a staking enforcement mechanism
and partnerships to compliant marketplaces.

The next stage now is the performance, the only thing that
matters: actual products, actual issuance, actual trading, actual settlement.

When Dusk can assist institutions and issuers to issue
assets acting like real securities, where privacy is needed, provable when
policy requires proving, then it ceases to be a crypto privacy project and is a
rarer animal: a blockchain which resembles financial infrastructure.

It is more difficult than following trends, but it is the
type of path that is more likely to be long-lasting if it succeeds.

#dusk k  $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation