Ziddi_555

I keep thinking about the first time someone tries to use a stablecoin in real life. Not for trading, not for hype, just for a normal reason like sending money to a friend, paying a supplier, or moving savings into something that feels steadier than local currency. They open a wallet, see USDT, and feel relief for a second. Then the confusion hits. The wallet says they need gas. The network fee changes. The transaction takes longer than expected. In that exact moment, stablecoins stop feeling like the future and start feeling like a complicated experiment. Plasma is basically a response to that moment.
Plasma presents itself as a Layer 1 built specifically for stablecoin settlement. It is not trying to be a chain for everything. It is trying to be the chain where stablecoins move fast, cheaply, and with less friction. The project talks about making stablecoins the main job of the network, not just a feature sitting on top of a general-purpose chain.
The most human part of Plasma’s design is the way it treats fees. Most blockchains still force people to hold a separate gas token just to move the token they actually care about. It is like needing to buy a special coin before you are allowed to send your own money. Plasma tries to remove this pain with gasless USDT transfers, meaning basic USDT sends can happen without the user worrying about a gas token balance.
Plasma also pushes the idea of stablecoin-first gas. In simple words, it wants transaction fees to be payable in assets people already hold, like USDT, instead of forcing them to manage extra tokens. That matters because normal people do not want to juggle multiple balances just to do one simple payment. They want one balance that works and one action that feels clear.
Under the hood, Plasma tries to stay familiar for builders. It is built to be EVM compatible, so developers can use Solidity and common Ethereum tools instead of learning a completely new environment. Plasma talks about using a modified Reth execution layer for this, which points to a design choice that says, “We want Ethereum-level compatibility, but with a chain tuned for stablecoin settlement.”
Speed is a big part of the story too, but not for bragging. Plasma highlights sub-second finality using PlasmaBFT. Finality is really just confidence. It is that feeling that the payment is truly done and will not be reversed. For merchants, payroll systems, and payment apps, this kind of finality is what turns onchain transfers from stressful waiting into something closer to tapping a button and moving on.
Then there is the Bitcoin side of the narrative. Plasma describes Bitcoin-anchored security as a way to support neutrality and censorship resistance. It is basically saying that it wants the chain to feel harder to control or pressure, and it wants its settlement history to lean on stronger assumptions. Plasma also points to a native, trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge as part of the plan, though deeper Bitcoin features often roll out in stages and take time to prove safe.
Plasma’s token is XPL, and it is meant to secure the network through staking and validator rewards. Think of XPL as the security layer of the chain. Plasma also talks about emissions and a burn model inspired by EIP-1559, which is a way of trying to balance inflation with network usage over time. In plain terms, it wants the chain to be able to reward validators while also letting real activity help reduce supply pressure.
The ecosystem is where Plasma either becomes real or stays a promise. A settlement chain needs liquidity, bridges, swaps, wallets, and apps that make stablecoins useful beyond simple transfers. Plasma has been positioning itself around deep stablecoin liquidity and integration with DeFi and infrastructure partners, because payments need more than speed. They need places to swap, places to earn, and tools that feel reliable day after day.
The roadmap Plasma signals is basically “core first, expansion next.” The mainnet beta focuses on the chain running smoothly with fast finality and EVM compatibility. Then, as the network matures, features like confidential transactions and deeper Bitcoin integration can be rolled out. This staged approach is not flashy, but it is realistic, because payment infrastructure is not forgiving and trust is hard to rebuild once it breaks.
There are real challenges too. Gasless transfers can attract spam if the system is not protected well. Stablecoin-first gas can get complicated behind the scenes. Bridges have a long history of being attacked. Privacy features must balance user protection with regulatory pressure. Token unlock schedules can create sell pressure and volatility. And the competition is intense, because many chains want to own stablecoin payments.
But Plasma’s direction still feels human because it starts from a real pain point. It is not just saying, “Look at our technology.” It is saying, “Stablecoins are already being used like money, so the chain should finally treat them that way.” If Plasma succeeds, it will not feel like a revolution. It will feel like relief, the kind of relief people feel when a tool stops getting in their way and just works

#plasma @Plasma $XPL

Dusk is a Layer 1 blockchain that was built for one very specific world: regulated finance. It started in 2018 with a simple but difficult idea. Financial markets need privacy to function, but they also need rules, audits, and accountability. Most blockchains force you to pick only one side. Either everything is public and trackable, or everything is closed and controlled. Dusk is trying to remove that forced choice and build a network where privacy and regulation can exist together in a realistic way.
If you look at normal blockchains, the biggest problem for finance is transparency. On many chains, anyone can follow wallets, view balances, and connect activity over time. That can be fine for open communities, but it is not fine for banks, funds, brokerages, or even regular businesses that hold sensitive positions. In real markets, privacy protects users and it also protects the market itself from manipulation. Dusk matters because it treats privacy like a normal requirement for finance, not like an optional feature.
At the center of Dusk is the idea of selective privacy. This means the public does not need to see everything, but the system can still prove that rules are being followed. In a healthy financial system, you do not want strangers reading your entire financial life. But you also want audits and compliance checks to be possible. Dusk’s direction is to make transactions private by default while still allowing proof when it is required. It is not “hide everything forever.” It is “show only what is necessary, to the right people, at the right time.”
Dusk is also built with a modular architecture. Instead of forcing everything into one heavy chain design, it separates the settlement layer from execution layers. The settlement layer is the part that secures the network, confirms transactions, and provides finality. Then, on top of that foundation, different execution environments can exist for different types of applications. This matters because finance is not one single type of app. Some products need privacy-heavy logic. Other products need compatibility with common developer tools.
One of the most practical features in Dusk is that it supports different ways of moving value depending on the situation. There is a transparent mode for cases where visibility is needed, like certain reporting-friendly flows. Then there is a shielded mode for cases where confidentiality matters, like sensitive transfers, business activity, or regulated assets that should not expose public details. This makes the network feel closer to real life. In real life, some things are public and some things are private. Dusk is trying to reflect that reality on-chain.
Behind the scenes, Dusk uses proof of stake. People stake the DUSK token to help secure the network, and the protocol selects participants to propose and validate blocks. The reason this is important for finance is finality. Financial systems need settlement to feel firm, not uncertain. When a transfer is confirmed, the system should feel like it truly happened and cannot be casually reversed. Dusk’s design pays close attention to reaching finality quickly, because settlement speed is not just convenience, it is risk management.
Dusk also gives attention to the network layer, which most users never think about but always feel. If a blockchain spreads transactions slowly or inefficiently, the whole experience becomes unstable under pressure. Dusk uses its own networking approach to improve how messages move across the network so performance can stay more predictable. This is one of those behind-the-scenes choices that can make the difference between a chain that feels smooth and a chain that feels unreliable when usage grows.
For developers, Dusk aims to offer more than one building environment. It supports a WASM-based virtual machine that is designed to work well with privacy-friendly features. It also supports an EVM-equivalent environment so Ethereum-style developers can build using familiar tools. This is a smart adoption move. Many builders do not want to abandon the ecosystem they already understand. Dusk is trying to bring those builders in without sacrificing its main purpose, which is regulated privacy.
Privacy inside an EVM environment is not easy, and Dusk is open about that challenge. If you want confidential activity in smart contracts, you need more than basic encryption. You need strong cryptographic proofs so the network can confirm correctness without exposing private details. Dusk’s direction is to make confidential transactions possible in its EVM world while still keeping auditability in mind. That means privacy that can exist alongside compliance, not privacy that breaks compliance.
Identity is another place where Dusk takes a more realistic approach. Many regulated financial products require identity checks, but users should not have to leak personal details to every app they use. Dusk’s identity idea is built around proofs. A user should be able to prove they meet requirements without sharing everything about themselves. In human terms, it is like showing a bouncer that you are old enough without handing over your full life story. If Dusk can make that smooth, it becomes a strong bridge between institutions and privacy-conscious users.
The DUSK token is not just there for trading. It has real roles in the network. It is used for staking, it is used to pay transaction fees, and it powers incentives for the validators who keep the chain running. Dusk also describes a long-term emission design where rewards decrease over time. The idea is to bootstrap security early, then gradually depend more on real network activity and fees as the ecosystem grows. For a chain aiming at finance, that long-term thinking matters more than short-term hype.
When people talk about the Dusk ecosystem, it helps to see it like a growing infrastructure stack. First you build the base settlement system. Then you add privacy tools, identity tools, and execution environments. Then developers start building real applications. Then institutions start exploring issuance, trading, and settlement. Dusk is trying to build that full path, not only a single product. It also explores ways to make staking easier for normal users through contract-based staking participation, which can improve participation without forcing everyone to run technical setups.
The roadmap challenge for Dusk is the same reason it is interesting. Regulated finance is not easy to enter. It moves slowly, it requires trust, and it demands stability. Privacy systems also add complexity, because key management, proofs, and selective disclosure must feel safe and user friendly. Dusk also has to handle competition from other chains claiming they can tokenize assets or support institutional use. In the end, Dusk has to prove itself not only with technology, but with real adoption, real applications, and real reliability.
The biggest risk is balance. If a system feels too strict, developers may avoid it. If it feels too loose, institutions may not trust it. Dusk is trying to stand in the middle and say privacy and compliance can live together responsibly. That is hard, but it is also exactly what makes Dusk worth watching. If it succeeds, it will not only be another blockchain. It will be a serious attempt at rebuilding parts of financial market infrastructure in a way that feels modern, private, and still accountable

#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK

Dusk is a Layer 1 blockchain built for a very specific kind of world: the world where money has rules. Not “rules” like vibes or community culture, but real rules—regulations, audits, reporting duties, investor restrictions, and privacy obligations that traditional finance lives with every day. Dusk’s main idea is simple: if blockchains want to handle serious financial products like regulated markets, tokenized securities, and institutional settlement, they need privacy and compliance built into the foundation, not bolted on later.
Most blockchains are loud by default. If you use them normally, a lot of your activity becomes public: balances, transfers, and sometimes even patterns that reveal strategies. That openness can be fine for fully public DeFi experiments, but it’s a deal-breaker for many professional and regulated use cases. Real markets don’t work if everyone can see your positions, your counterparties, and your timing. At the same time, regulated markets can’t operate on pure secrecy either, because regulators and auditors must be able to verify what happened. Dusk exists in that tension. It tries to make privacy normal, while keeping the option for auditability when it’s legally required.
The reason this matters is because “tokenization” isn’t just about putting a token on-chain. When you tokenize real-world assets—stocks, bonds, funds, invoices, real estate shares—you inherit a whole life cycle of rules: who can hold it, how transfers happen, whether there are caps, how dividends or payouts work, how voting works, how redemptions happen, and how identity requirements are enforced. If a blockchain cannot support those realities cleanly, institutions either won’t use it, or they’ll build heavy off-chain systems that defeat the purpose of using a blockchain in the first place. Dusk is trying to keep more of that logic on-chain while still respecting privacy and compliance needs.
Under the hood, Dusk is built like a modular system rather than a single “everything chain.” The easiest way to understand it is: one part focuses on final settlement and the base rules of moving value, and other parts focus on running applications and smart contracts. This is meant to keep settlement stable and predictable while letting execution environments evolve. That modular direction is also how Dusk tries to stay practical for developers—because developers don’t like reinventing tools when the rest of the industry already uses Ethereum-style tooling.
The settlement layer in Dusk is designed for fast, reliable finality. In finance, settlement finality is a serious requirement. Nobody wants “it might be final if you wait long enough.” Dusk uses a proof-of-stake approach that finalizes blocks through committee-based steps, rather than relying on slow, probabilistic confirmation. The idea is to reach a clear conclusion quickly: a block is proposed, checked, and then confirmed, with roles distributed across committees. That’s meant to feel closer to how professional market infrastructure thinks about finality.
Networking also matters more than most people realize. A blockchain can have a smart design on paper but still struggle if it can’t move messages efficiently across the network. Dusk uses a structured broadcast approach rather than pure gossip-style flooding. In normal words: instead of everyone shouting the same message everywhere repeatedly, the network tries to propagate blocks and votes more efficiently and predictably. This is the kind of detail that sounds boring—until you remember that institutions care about stability, latency, and performance under stress.
One of the most “Dusk” design choices is that it supports two different transaction styles natively. There is a public, transparent transfer model for situations where openness is required, and there is a shielded, privacy-focused transfer model for situations where confidentiality is needed. In practice, this means Dusk isn’t forcing the entire network into “everything is public” or “everything is private.” It’s trying to support the messy reality of finance, where different flows need different privacy settings. The privacy side relies on modern cryptography so that transactions can be validated as correct without exposing sensitive details, and it’s designed so that selective disclosure is possible—meaning the right parties can prove or reveal what’s needed for audits or compliance without turning the whole system into a public surveillance machine.
To make smart contract development easier, Dusk is also pushing an EVM-compatible execution environment. That’s important because it reduces friction for builders and integrators. If you can use familiar Ethereum tools, familiar wallets, and familiar smart contract languages, you don’t have to convince every developer to learn an entirely new world just to build on your chain. The broader goal is to combine “familiar developer experience” with “regulated-finance-grade settlement and privacy underneath.” On top of that, Dusk has been working on privacy features for smart contract activity too, not only for basic transfers. The point is to make it possible to build applications where sensitive values can stay confidential while still being provable and auditable in controlled ways.
When people talk about Dusk, the tokenomics piece comes up quickly because incentives shape security. DUSK is used for staking and participating in consensus, and it’s also used for fees (gas) across the network. Dusk’s token model includes long-term emissions meant to reward validators over many years, and those rewards are split across the different roles needed in its committee-based consensus process. This kind of structure is meant to ensure the network stays secure and well-incentivized as it grows. Dusk also uses a smaller unit for gas pricing so fee calculations can be expressed cleanly, and it includes mechanisms meant to keep validator behavior aligned with network health (including penalties for repeated failures). The goal is straightforward: keep consensus participants honest, keep the chain running, and keep security sustainable over the long term.
The ecosystem direction around Dusk has a clear theme: regulated rails, tokenized assets, and institutional tooling, rather than only chasing random retail DeFi trends. That’s why you see Dusk talking about regulated venues, custody infrastructure, and regulated settlement assets. In the real financial world, custody is not optional. Institutions need secure, controlled ways to hold and manage assets, often in environments where they can prove compliance and maintain internal controls. So custody partnerships and “institution-grade” custody tooling matter a lot more here than they would for a purely retail chain.
Roadmap-wise, Dusk has been moving from theory into real deployment steps: mainnet launch milestones, bridges for interoperability, and continued development toward the modular multi-layer stack. The practical direction is consistent: strengthen the settlement base, make it easier for developers to build via EVM compatibility, expand privacy-preserving capabilities beyond basic transfers, and ship the components needed for tokenized asset lifecycles and regulated financial applications. The more Dusk actually ships and keeps stable uptime, the more credible its “we’re infrastructure” story becomes—because infrastructure isn’t judged by hype, it’s judged by reliability and real usage.
Now for the honest part: the challenges are real. Building privacy systems that are also compliant is one of the hardest balancing acts in crypto. If you lean too far into compliance control, crypto-native users may lose interest. If you lean too far into privacy without the right disclosure options, institutions and regulators may hesitate. Even when the cryptography is correct, user experience can still be tough: private transactions are more complex than public ones, wallets must handle them cleanly, and developers need good tooling and documentation so they don’t make mistakes that leak data or break compliance workflows.
Another challenge is competition. “RWA tokenization” is crowded now. Many networks and platforms claim they will be the home of regulated assets, or the backbone of institutional DeFi. Dusk has a distinct angle—privacy plus auditability at the base layer, with a modular architecture—but it still needs to prove adoption. In the end, markets decide with volume, integrations, and sustained usage—not with whitepapers. Dusk also has to manage complexity in messaging, because it has multiple layers, multiple privacy systems, and multiple specialized protocols. If new users can’t quickly understand what to use and why, growth slows down.
The final challenge is time. Institutional adoption cycles are slow. Legal review is slow. Integration is slow. Even when there’s interest, deployments move in quarters and years, not in crypto weeks. That’s why Dusk’s approach is a long game: build the rails properly, prove security and stability, integrate with regulated players, and gradually expand real activity on-chain. If Dusk succeeds, it won’t only be because it has good tech. It will be because it makes regulated on-chain finance feel normal—private where it should be, auditable where it must be, and usable enough that institutions and developers actually choose it

#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK

Dusk is a Layer 1 blockchain built for one very specific world: real finance. Not “finance” as a buzzword, but the kind with rules, audits, reporting, licenses, investor eligibility, and regulators who actually care what happens. The project started in 2018, and from the beginning its message has been consistent: if you want financial markets on-chain, you can’t pretend privacy and compliance are optional. You need both. Dusk tries to be the base infrastructure where institutions can use blockchain benefits like shared settlement and programmable logic, without exposing every balance, trade, and position to the entire internet.
To understand why Dusk exists, it helps to admit something people don’t say enough in crypto: full transparency can break normal markets. In real life, banks don’t publish your account history. Funds don’t want competitors watching their strategies. Traders don’t want their large orders visible before they fill, because it invites front-running and manipulation. Businesses don’t want sensitive treasury movements, shareholder changes, or investor activity permanently searchable. On most chains, transparency is the default, and privacy becomes something you bolt on later. Dusk is trying to invert that logic by making privacy a first-class feature while still giving a path to auditability when required.
The biggest idea behind Dusk is “privacy, but not chaos.” It is not aiming to create a black box chain that makes compliance impossible. Instead, it aims for confidentiality that can still be proven correct, and for information that can be revealed to the right people under the right conditions. That’s an important distinction. In regulated finance, the question is rarely “should there be audits?” The question is “who is allowed to see what, when, and why?” Dusk tries to make those boundaries possible on-chain, so the chain can support real financial products rather than just crypto-native experiments.
Under the hood, Dusk uses a modular design. In simple words, it separates the chain’s “settlement engine” from the places where apps run. The settlement layer is where finality, security, consensus, and the shared truth of balances live. On top of that, Dusk can support different execution environments, including an EVM environment for Solidity developers. The reason this matters is practical: regulated systems don’t like constant rewrites. Modularity makes it easier to add capabilities over time while keeping the base settlement layer stable and predictable.
Dusk’s base layer is built for final settlement, because finality matters in finance. In many crypto systems, you get “pretty final” transactions after waiting, but financial market infrastructure wants deterministic finality: once it’s final, it’s done, and you can build settlement processes around it with confidence. Dusk uses a proof-of-stake approach where stakers participate in block production and verification. In Dusk language, these participants are often called provisioners. The design uses committee selection and a multi-step flow to propose, check, and finalize blocks. The main point for a normal reader is this: Dusk is built to be a settlement chain that prioritizes reliable, predictable finality for financial uses, not just raw throughput.
Networking also matters more than most people think. A chain can have great consensus on paper, but if block propagation is messy, you get delays, inconsistent confirmations, and a poor experience for real-world settlement. Dusk includes a more structured broadcast approach for moving information across the network, which is meant to keep communication efficient as the network scales. This is one of those “boring” areas that becomes very important the moment institutions and market venues want predictable behavior under load.
Privacy on Dusk is not a single switch. One of the more interesting parts of Dusk is that it supports two different ways to move value. In a public mode, transactions behave in a familiar account-based way, where balances and transfers are visible. This is useful when transparency is required or simply preferred. In a private mode, transactions are shielded using a note-based approach backed by zero-knowledge proofs. Instead of the chain showing everything in the open, the system can prove a transfer is valid without exposing the sensitive details that would normally be public. What makes this approach especially relevant for finance is that it’s designed to support selective disclosure, meaning there are ways to reveal information to authorized parties when audits or compliance processes require it.
That selective disclosure piece is where Dusk’s philosophy shows up clearly. The chain is trying to avoid an all-or-nothing world. It’s not saying “everything must be public forever,” and it’s also not saying “nobody can ever see anything.” It’s trying to support a more realistic middle ground that matches how financial systems work today: most information stays private, but there is an ability to prove correctness and comply with oversight.
For developers and ecosystem growth, Dusk also invests in EVM compatibility. That matters because most smart contract developers and many of the financial building blocks in crypto already live in the EVM world. Dusk’s EVM environment is designed to feel familiar to Solidity teams, while still tying back to Dusk’s settlement layer. In practice, this is how Dusk tries to attract builders without asking them to learn everything from scratch. It’s also how Dusk positions itself to host both “institutional-grade” applications and more typical crypto applications, without losing its core focus.
But EVM compatibility alone doesn’t solve the privacy problem, because the EVM world is generally transparent. That’s why Dusk has talked about an additional privacy layer for its EVM environment, designed to let applications keep sensitive financial data confidential while still being able to satisfy audit requirements. In simple terms, it’s Dusk’s attempt to bring “finance-style privacy” into the EVM experience, not only into the base chain. It relies on advanced cryptography, but the goal is straightforward: make it practical for EVM apps to handle confidential balances and actions without turning the chain into a public database of everything.
Identity and eligibility are another part of the regulated finance puzzle. If you’re tokenizing regulated assets, you often need to enforce rules about who can buy, hold, or trade. The worst way to do that is to publish personal identity data publicly on-chain forever. Dusk has an identity approach based on self-sovereign identity ideas and zero-knowledge proofs, where a user can prove they meet requirements without exposing all of their private information. That is a big deal for regulated markets because eligibility is normal, but data minimization is also normal. Dusk’s approach aims to let users prove “I’m allowed” without turning compliance into mass surveillance.
Tokenomics on Dusk is centered around security and incentives. The DUSK token is used for staking and for fees, and the supply is structured so part of the supply exists upfront and part is emitted over time as rewards. The simple story is that the token aligns network participants with keeping the chain secure, available, and stable. Staking rewards encourage validators/provisioners to support the network, and penalty mechanisms discourage poor operation. The details of staking and emissions are important to serious users because they shape long-term security and decentralization, but the basic purpose is the same as other proof-of-stake chains: pay people to secure the network, and punish behavior that puts the network at risk.
Where Dusk gets especially interesting is in the “grown-up infrastructure” partnerships it has been building. A lot of projects say they are building for institutions, but you can tell the real focus by the kind of partners they prioritize. Dusk has highlighted relationships around regulated market venues, custody infrastructure, regulated euro rails, and data standards. This is not the typical “we partnered with a random protocol” announcement style. The theme is more like: build the pieces a regulated on-chain market actually needs—issuance, trading, settlement asset, custody, reporting, and connectivity.
One example that keeps showing up in Dusk’s recent direction is the push toward regulated euro settlement rails, including a MiCA-aligned euro token that’s meant to be used in regulated workflows. That kind of piece matters because tokenized securities and regulated markets don’t just need the asset; they need a reliable way to settle trades in something institutions can actually use. Without a settlement asset that fits regulation, the whole “on-chain exchange” story tends to stall. Another part of the same theme is institutional custody, because custody is often the first hard wall you hit when you try to take RWAs seriously. If custody is weak or unclear, serious market players won’t touch it.
Dusk has also leaned into interoperability and data standards, which is important because regulated assets don’t want to live in isolated silos forever. If a chain wants to matter, its assets need to move, interact, and plug into broader liquidity and risk management systems. At the same time, cross-chain systems add risk, and financial markets hate unnecessary risk. That’s why Dusk’s approach emphasizes standardized tooling and credible data feeds: not just “connect everything,” but “connect in a way that can be trusted.”
Roadmap-wise, the direction is fairly consistent. The chain wants to keep strengthening the settlement foundation, expand developer adoption through EVM compatibility, bring privacy deeper into the execution layer, and keep onboarding real-world financial infrastructure partners. It’s basically trying to assemble a full on-chain market stack: a place where regulated assets can be issued, traded, settled with compliant money, and held under strong custody and control—all while preserving the level of privacy normal finance expects.
Now for the honest part: this is a hard mission. Privacy plus compliance is not a one-time technical problem. Regulations vary by region, asset type, and time. What is acceptable in one jurisdiction can be unacceptable in another. Even if the technology is strong, institutions move slowly, and adoption cycles take time because there are audits, legal reviews, operational testing, and risk committees. There is also the reality that cryptography-heavy systems are complex. Complexity is not automatically bad, but it raises the bar for audits, secure implementation, and careful upgrades.
There’s also the competitive landscape. Almost every chain now claims to be “RWA ready” and “institutional friendly.” Dusk has to keep proving that its difference is not just marketing. Its real differentiator is the combination: privacy built into the financial design, selective disclosure for auditability, identity tools that don’t leak personal data, and settlement characteristics designed for market infrastructure. But to win, it will also need liquidity, developers, and active applications, because even the best infrastructure won’t thrive if nobody builds and nobody trades.
If you zoom out, Dusk is trying to make blockchains behave more like financial infrastructure without losing what makes crypto valuable. It wants to keep programmability, shared settlement, and composability, but it wants to remove the “everything is public forever” problem that makes real finance uncomfortable on most chains. If Dusk succeeds, the result is not just another chain. It becomes a place where regulated assets and markets can actually live on-chain in a way that feels normal to institutions and fair to users

#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK