Bit Gurly
10.2k Posts
Bit Gurly
Square Verified+Belive it, manifest it!
Open Trade
WOO Holder
Frequent Trader
4.7 Years
107 Following
69.7K+ Followers
65.2K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
Ethereum longs jumped 8% in a single move today.
At the same time, Tom Lee says the bottom may already be in.
Could be coincidence but someone already knows something.
$ETH
#FootballSeason2026 #JuneCPIFedHike20% #TrumpMeetsOnWiderIranOffensive
At the same time, Tom Lee says the bottom may already be in.
Could be coincidence but someone already knows something.
$ETH
#FootballSeason2026 #JuneCPIFedHike20% #TrumpMeetsOnWiderIranOffensive
PINNED
Partly True
Warren Buffett is sitting on nearly $400B in cash, and that’s hard to ignore.
The last time Berkshire built a cash pile this large was around the 2007–2008 period. It doesn’t guarantee a crash, but it does suggest Buffett sees more value in waiting than chasing current prices.
GM.
#S&P500 #BitcoinPlansECashHardFork #SpaceXAnthropicOpenAIIPOsMayTopVCExitsSince2000
The last time Berkshire built a cash pile this large was around the 2007–2008 period. It doesn’t guarantee a crash, but it does suggest Buffett sees more value in waiting than chasing current prices.
GM.
#S&P500 #BitcoinPlansECashHardFork #SpaceXAnthropicOpenAIIPOsMayTopVCExitsSince2000
Confidentiality alone does not make a blockchain suitable for financial markets.
A private ownership transfer is still unreliable if participants cannot determine exactly when it becomes final.
This is why Dusk’s architecture matters beyond zero-knowledge proofs.
Applications can run through DuskEVM or DuskVM, while DuskDS handles consensus, data availability and settlement. Once a block is ratified through Succinct Attestation, the network reaches deterministic finality rather than leaving institutions exposed to normal user-facing reorg uncertainty.
I see the design as two connected requirements:
Protect the transaction while it is processed.
Make its final state unambiguous once settled.
For regulated assets, privacy protects the parties. Finality protects the market.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
A private ownership transfer is still unreliable if participants cannot determine exactly when it becomes final.
This is why Dusk’s architecture matters beyond zero-knowledge proofs.
Applications can run through DuskEVM or DuskVM, while DuskDS handles consensus, data availability and settlement. Once a block is ratified through Succinct Attestation, the network reaches deterministic finality rather than leaving institutions exposed to normal user-facing reorg uncertainty.
I see the design as two connected requirements:
Protect the transaction while it is processed.
Make its final state unambiguous once settled.
For regulated assets, privacy protects the parties. Finality protects the market.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
One sentence in TermMax’s documentation needs careful reading.
A borrower can purchase FTs from the market and use them to repay the debt. If those FTs trade below face value, this can cost less than repaying directly with debt tokens.
Mechanically, that is correct.
But the discount is not guaranteed to remain available.
An FT can be redeemed for one debt token at maturity. My expectation is that its price should move closer to that face value as maturity approaches, unless liquidity or collateral risk changes the market.
A borrower who sold FTs at $0.80 may therefore not be able to buy them back later at the same price.
If the FT trades at $0.98 and the swap includes fees and slippage, most of the apparent repayment saving has already disappeared. Thin liquidity could make the buyback even less attractive.
TermMax’s V2 contracts confirm that the repayment flexibility is real: the GT contract includes `repay`, while the router includes `swapAndRepay`.
The overlooked variable is timing.
Buying back FT may work well while a meaningful discount and sufficient liquidity remain. Closer to maturity, direct repayment could be simpler.
TermMax gives borrowers another repayment route.
The market decides whether that route is actually cheaper.
What decides whether FT repayment is cheaper?
#TermMax | @TermMax
A borrower can purchase FTs from the market and use them to repay the debt. If those FTs trade below face value, this can cost less than repaying directly with debt tokens.
Mechanically, that is correct.
But the discount is not guaranteed to remain available.
An FT can be redeemed for one debt token at maturity. My expectation is that its price should move closer to that face value as maturity approaches, unless liquidity or collateral risk changes the market.
A borrower who sold FTs at $0.80 may therefore not be able to buy them back later at the same price.
If the FT trades at $0.98 and the swap includes fees and slippage, most of the apparent repayment saving has already disappeared. Thin liquidity could make the buyback even less attractive.
TermMax’s V2 contracts confirm that the repayment flexibility is real: the GT contract includes `repay`, while the router includes `swapAndRepay`.
The overlooked variable is timing.
Buying back FT may work well while a meaningful discount and sufficient liquidity remain. Closer to maturity, direct repayment could be simpler.
TermMax gives borrowers another repayment route.
The market decides whether that route is actually cheaper.
What decides whether FT repayment is cheaper?
#TermMax | @TermMax
FT price
Pool liquidity
Time remaining
Swap costs
19 hr(s) left
The market just punished crowded shorts.
$BTC surged to $70,000 while $ETH pushed above $2,300, gaining 9% and 23% in only 24 hours.
One of the most aggressive short squeezes crypto has ever seen.
#CryptoRally #FOMCWatch
$BTC surged to $70,000 while $ETH pushed above $2,300, gaining 9% and 23% in only 24 hours.
One of the most aggressive short squeezes crypto has ever seen.
#CryptoRally #FOMCWatch
Verified
One detail in TermMax’s liquidation design deserves more attention than the phrase “RWA support.”
The Gearing Token contract includes `previewDelivery`, `delivery` and `liquidate`. TermMax’s documentation explains why: if normal repayment or liquidation liquidity is insufficient, FT holders can receive a proportional share of the available underlying assets and collateral.
That is not the protocol promising every lender an effortless cash exit.
It is the protocol defining what the lender can claim when selling the collateral immediately would be difficult or destructive.
For liquid crypto collateral, an AMM can often sell assets and repay lenders. That assumption becomes weaker with private credit, tokenized property or other assets that do not trade continuously.
Physical delivery avoids pretending those markets have instant liquidity.
But it also transfers a real decision to the lender.
Receiving collateral may protect the legal or economic claim, yet the lender could still inherit valuation uncertainty, custody requirements and an asset that takes time to sell.
TermMax itself describes physical delivery as a risk mitigant, not a way to eliminate risk. That distinction matters.
This mechanism could widen the collateral that fixed-rate lending can support, particularly beyond highly liquid tokens.
Whether it works well will depend on what is delivered, how it is valued and whether lenders have a practical route to hold or exit it.
Before choosing the rate, I would ask a simpler question:
What matters most if repayment comes through physical delivery?
#TermMax | @TermMax
The Gearing Token contract includes `previewDelivery`, `delivery` and `liquidate`. TermMax’s documentation explains why: if normal repayment or liquidation liquidity is insufficient, FT holders can receive a proportional share of the available underlying assets and collateral.
That is not the protocol promising every lender an effortless cash exit.
It is the protocol defining what the lender can claim when selling the collateral immediately would be difficult or destructive.
For liquid crypto collateral, an AMM can often sell assets and repay lenders. That assumption becomes weaker with private credit, tokenized property or other assets that do not trade continuously.
Physical delivery avoids pretending those markets have instant liquidity.
But it also transfers a real decision to the lender.
Receiving collateral may protect the legal or economic claim, yet the lender could still inherit valuation uncertainty, custody requirements and an asset that takes time to sell.
TermMax itself describes physical delivery as a risk mitigant, not a way to eliminate risk. That distinction matters.
This mechanism could widen the collateral that fixed-rate lending can support, particularly beyond highly liquid tokens.
Whether it works well will depend on what is delivered, how it is valued and whether lenders have a practical route to hold or exit it.
Before choosing the rate, I would ask a simpler question:
What matters most if repayment comes through physical delivery?
#TermMax | @TermMax
Asset liquidity
43%
Fair valuation
0%
Easy custody
43%
Clear exit path
14%
7 votes • Voting closed
$DUSK
I kept seeing the same Dusk numbers shared together and honestly I was reading them the wrong way at first.
€300M+ confirmed issuance.
50K+ investor reach.
210M+ $DUSK staked.
My first instinct was to treat all of that like one big adoption number.
But it isn’t.
The €300M+ figure is about assets institutions are bringing into the Dusk market infrastructure. The 50K+ number is reach across crypto and partners. And the 210M+ DUSK staked is doing a completely different job, it is securing the network.
None of those numbers is TVL.
That sounds obvious once you say it, but I think it matters because @Dusk is not really building around the usual DeFi dashboard logic.
If I only looked for deposits sitting inside protocols, I would miss what the project is actually trying to grow.
One signal is asset supply.
One is distribution and investor access.
One is **network security**.
And they can move independently.
That actually made the Dusk adoption story feel more useful to me because now I know what I’m looking at.
€300M of confirmed issuance does not mean €300M is already locked onchain today, and 210M DUSK staked does not mean users deposited that amount into some RWA product.
Different numbers, different parts of the machine.
I’d rather read them separately than combine everything into one impressive-looking TVL story.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk
I kept seeing the same Dusk numbers shared together and honestly I was reading them the wrong way at first.
€300M+ confirmed issuance.
50K+ investor reach.
210M+ $DUSK staked.
My first instinct was to treat all of that like one big adoption number.
But it isn’t.
The €300M+ figure is about assets institutions are bringing into the Dusk market infrastructure. The 50K+ number is reach across crypto and partners. And the 210M+ DUSK staked is doing a completely different job, it is securing the network.
None of those numbers is TVL.
That sounds obvious once you say it, but I think it matters because @Dusk is not really building around the usual DeFi dashboard logic.
If I only looked for deposits sitting inside protocols, I would miss what the project is actually trying to grow.
One signal is asset supply.
One is distribution and investor access.
One is **network security**.
And they can move independently.
That actually made the Dusk adoption story feel more useful to me because now I know what I’m looking at.
€300M of confirmed issuance does not mean €300M is already locked onchain today, and 210M DUSK staked does not mean users deposited that amount into some RWA product.
Different numbers, different parts of the machine.
I’d rather read them separately than combine everything into one impressive-looking TVL story.
$DUSK #dusk @Dusk
Partly True
The Fed has a $4.243B Treasury bill purchase scheduled today.
Worth watching, but I wouldn’t call it an instant “bullish” signal by itself.
More liquidity can support risk assets, but what matters is whether that liquidity actually reaches markets.
For crypto, I’m watching $BTC reaction first.
Worth watching, but I wouldn’t call it an instant “bullish” signal by itself.
More liquidity can support risk assets, but what matters is whether that liquidity actually reaches markets.
For crypto, I’m watching $BTC reaction first.
#termmax @TermMax
The treasury section changed my read.
TermMax says a project can put treasury tokens into a Dual Investment Vault, choose a higher strike, and collect premiums while traders take the other side. Its live Alpha interface currently describes those yields as being funded by long/short buyers.
But there is a detail worth looking at more carefully.
On actual TermMax Alpha vault pages, the risk notice explicitly says deposited tokens may be converted into USDT if the strike price is reached. That warning is visible today on multiple vaults, including the IR and NVDAon vaults.
So I don’t think the interesting question is simply:
“Can a project earn yield on idle treasury tokens?”
My interpretation is that the vault can also encode a conditional treasury sale.
Below the strike → treasury keeps collecting premium.
Strike reached → some tokens can be converted at a price selected in advance.
That is materially different from a team suddenly deciding to market-sell treasury inventory.
What I cannot verify from the public material is whether this actually reduces market impact at meaningful treasury size. That would depend on vault liquidity, demand from traders and how aggressively the project sets its strike.
Still, this changes how I look at TermMax Alpha.
For projects, the vault may be less about finding another source of APY and more about deciding in advance what price makes treasury distribution acceptable.
That is a much more interesting form of token utility.
The treasury section changed my read.
TermMax says a project can put treasury tokens into a Dual Investment Vault, choose a higher strike, and collect premiums while traders take the other side. Its live Alpha interface currently describes those yields as being funded by long/short buyers.
But there is a detail worth looking at more carefully.
On actual TermMax Alpha vault pages, the risk notice explicitly says deposited tokens may be converted into USDT if the strike price is reached. That warning is visible today on multiple vaults, including the IR and NVDAon vaults.
So I don’t think the interesting question is simply:
“Can a project earn yield on idle treasury tokens?”
My interpretation is that the vault can also encode a conditional treasury sale.
Below the strike → treasury keeps collecting premium.
Strike reached → some tokens can be converted at a price selected in advance.
That is materially different from a team suddenly deciding to market-sell treasury inventory.
What I cannot verify from the public material is whether this actually reduces market impact at meaningful treasury size. That would depend on vault liquidity, demand from traders and how aggressively the project sets its strike.
Still, this changes how I look at TermMax Alpha.
For projects, the vault may be less about finding another source of APY and more about deciding in advance what price makes treasury distribution acceptable.
That is a much more interesting form of token utility.
$DUSK
I was comparing the transaction models in Dusk’s Core Components documentation when one detail corrected my earlier assumption.
Phoenix is not described as a privacy application sitting above Dusk.
It sits inside DuskDS.
The documentation confirms that DuskDS supports two models: Moonlight for transparent public accounts and Phoenix for shielded transfers.
Phoenix is UTXO-based, while both models can transfer DUSK, pay gas and enter contract execution.
That placement matters more than the usual “private transactions” description.
On a standard public account model, someone does not always need your name to learn something useful. Repeated transfers, changing balances and interactions with the same contracts can build a recognizable settlement pattern.
Phoenix changes the information available underneath that activity. A zero-knowledge proof can demonstrate that a valid output is being spent, while a nullifier prevents it from being spent again.
The network can verify the transaction without reproducing the same public account trail.
I initially wanted to describe that as private settlement for every asset on Dusk. The documents do not support that broad claim.
Phoenix specifically handles shielded DUSK flows. Privacy for regulated securities still depends on the application design, DuskVM contracts, identity rules and selective disclosure.
So the narrower conclusion is probably the stronger one: Phoenix protects the base movement entering settlement and execution. It does not make the whole financial workflow disappear.
#dusk @Dusk
I was comparing the transaction models in Dusk’s Core Components documentation when one detail corrected my earlier assumption.
Phoenix is not described as a privacy application sitting above Dusk.
It sits inside DuskDS.
The documentation confirms that DuskDS supports two models: Moonlight for transparent public accounts and Phoenix for shielded transfers.
Phoenix is UTXO-based, while both models can transfer DUSK, pay gas and enter contract execution.
That placement matters more than the usual “private transactions” description.
On a standard public account model, someone does not always need your name to learn something useful. Repeated transfers, changing balances and interactions with the same contracts can build a recognizable settlement pattern.
Phoenix changes the information available underneath that activity. A zero-knowledge proof can demonstrate that a valid output is being spent, while a nullifier prevents it from being spent again.
The network can verify the transaction without reproducing the same public account trail.
I initially wanted to describe that as private settlement for every asset on Dusk. The documents do not support that broad claim.
Phoenix specifically handles shielded DUSK flows. Privacy for regulated securities still depends on the application design, DuskVM contracts, identity rules and selective disclosure.
So the narrower conclusion is probably the stronger one: Phoenix protects the base movement entering settlement and execution. It does not make the whole financial workflow disappear.
#dusk @Dusk
It has been a bad week for Crypto
- $85 Billion wiped from total Crypto mcap
- BTC fell to a 31-day low of $62,500
- BTC ETFs saw $389M in outflows, biggest in 6 weeks
- Saylor's Strategy sold another $108M worth of BTC
- Altcoin mcap hit its lowest weekly close in nearly 3 years
- SEC cancelled its crypto regulation meeting
#DOJProbesA16zOverRivalAIBoardSeats #DollarHits3MonthLow #VIXFallsTo2026Low
- $85 Billion wiped from total Crypto mcap
- BTC fell to a 31-day low of $62,500
- BTC ETFs saw $389M in outflows, biggest in 6 weeks
- Saylor's Strategy sold another $108M worth of BTC
- Altcoin mcap hit its lowest weekly close in nearly 3 years
- SEC cancelled its crypto regulation meeting
#DOJProbesA16zOverRivalAIBoardSeats #DollarHits3MonthLow #VIXFallsTo2026Low
$BTC is testing a key trendline again.
The last two similar setups ended with sharp drops.
If Bitcoin reclaims this level and holds above it, the structure starts looking stronger.
If it gets rejected again, another move lower becomes more likely.
The last two similar setups ended with sharp drops.
If Bitcoin reclaims this level and holds above it, the structure starts looking stronger.
If it gets rejected again, another move lower becomes more likely.
Partly True
🇺🇸 Fed will inject $16.97 BILLION into the market starting next week.
Liquidity will hit the market for 3 consecutive weeks, which is good for crypto.
Liquidity will hit the market for 3 consecutive weeks, which is good for crypto.
Those calling the “bottom is already in” let them…
Because one of the 100% accurate signal of the bottom, the Pi Cycle Bottom Indicator.
Has yet to cross down, which could signal the start of the final months of the bottoming phase.
Because one of the 100% accurate signal of the bottom, the Pi Cycle Bottom Indicator.
Has yet to cross down, which could signal the start of the final months of the bottoming phase.
One thing I think DeFi still underestimates is how difficult it is to plan around a borrowing cost that changes every few blocks.
That is fine for traders.
It is much harder for a treasury, market maker or business trying to know what its capital will actually cost next month.
That is why I see @TermMax differently from another lending market.
The interesting part is not simply “fixed yield.”
It is the creation of an onchain yield curve.
Borrowers choose a maturity and lock the rate for that period. Lenders can decide which term they want exposure to. Curators can price different maturities instead of treating all capital like one giant pool.
That starts making onchain credit behave more like an actual credit market.
A 7-day loan should not necessarily carry the same risk or price as a 90-day loan.
Different collateral should not automatically share the same risk assumptions either.
TermMax separates those pieces.
And this becomes much more important as the collateral moves beyond normal crypto assets.
Tokenized stocks, institutional collateral and other RWAs need predictable financing much more than another variable-rate money market.
That is the part of the TermMax thesis I think people should watch.
The real competition may not be about who offers the highest APY.
It may be about who builds the most usable onchain interest-rate market.
@TermMax
#TermMax
That is fine for traders.
It is much harder for a treasury, market maker or business trying to know what its capital will actually cost next month.
That is why I see @TermMax differently from another lending market.
The interesting part is not simply “fixed yield.”
It is the creation of an onchain yield curve.
Borrowers choose a maturity and lock the rate for that period. Lenders can decide which term they want exposure to. Curators can price different maturities instead of treating all capital like one giant pool.
That starts making onchain credit behave more like an actual credit market.
A 7-day loan should not necessarily carry the same risk or price as a 90-day loan.
Different collateral should not automatically share the same risk assumptions either.
TermMax separates those pieces.
And this becomes much more important as the collateral moves beyond normal crypto assets.
Tokenized stocks, institutional collateral and other RWAs need predictable financing much more than another variable-rate money market.
That is the part of the TermMax thesis I think people should watch.
The real competition may not be about who offers the highest APY.
It may be about who builds the most usable onchain interest-rate market.
@TermMax
#TermMax
$BTC is still stuck between $62K support and $67K resistance.
Momentum indicators are improving, but BTC needs a clean breakout first.
Above $67K looks bullish.
Lose $62K and $58K comes back into play.
For now, the range is everything.
Momentum indicators are improving, but BTC needs a clean breakout first.
Above $67K looks bullish.
Lose $62K and $58K comes back into play.
For now, the range is everything.
$DUSK
One detail changed how I understand privacy on @Dusk : the sensitive information is not limited to a customer’s name.
A financial workflow connects several private inputs. Customer records are used for eligibility checks, transaction values move through payments, counterparties appear during settlement, and reporting data reveals what happened afterward.
Putting this process on a fully public blockchain may automate the work, but it can also connect those separate pieces into one visible trail. Even without showing a person’s name directly, repeated payments, balances and transaction patterns may reveal who is doing what.
Dusk takes a more practical approach.
Its privacy-preserving smart contracts can run the checks, payments, settlement and reporting without publishing every input used by the contract. The network can confirm that the required rules were followed and produce a verifiable result while the underlying customer record or payment amount stays protected.
That distinction matters for regulated finance.
Privacy does not mean hiding the outcome from everyone. Authorized institutions, auditors or supervisors can still access the information needed for review through selective disclosure. The wider market only sees what it actually needs to see.
To me, this is where Dusk’s design becomes more useful than simple transaction privacy.
It protects the complete financial workflow, not just one transfer—allowing institutions to automate operations without turning their internal records and client activity into public market data.
#dusk
One detail changed how I understand privacy on @Dusk : the sensitive information is not limited to a customer’s name.
A financial workflow connects several private inputs. Customer records are used for eligibility checks, transaction values move through payments, counterparties appear during settlement, and reporting data reveals what happened afterward.
Putting this process on a fully public blockchain may automate the work, but it can also connect those separate pieces into one visible trail. Even without showing a person’s name directly, repeated payments, balances and transaction patterns may reveal who is doing what.
Dusk takes a more practical approach.
Its privacy-preserving smart contracts can run the checks, payments, settlement and reporting without publishing every input used by the contract. The network can confirm that the required rules were followed and produce a verifiable result while the underlying customer record or payment amount stays protected.
That distinction matters for regulated finance.
Privacy does not mean hiding the outcome from everyone. Authorized institutions, auditors or supervisors can still access the information needed for review through selective disclosure. The wider market only sees what it actually needs to see.
To me, this is where Dusk’s design becomes more useful than simple transaction privacy.
It protects the complete financial workflow, not just one transfer—allowing institutions to automate operations without turning their internal records and client activity into public market data.
#dusk
$DUSK
I used to think consensus was mostly about deciding who gets to produce the next block.
Succinct Attestation made me look at it differently.
On DuskDS, stakers running provisioner nodes do not all perform the same job in every round. Selected provisioners move a candidate block through three separate stages.
One provisioner proposes it.
A committee validates it.
Another committee ratifies the result.
That final step is what matters to me. Once the block is ratified, Dusk reaches deterministic finality. The network does not leave market participants waiting through several confirmations while wondering whether the transaction could still be reorganized.
For normal crypto transfers, that may feel like a technical improvement.
For the regulated markets @Dusk is targeting, it affects the actual meaning of settlement.
If a tokenized bond changes ownership, the issuer, investor and venue need one final state. Payment coordination, transfer restrictions and ownership records cannot safely depend on a transaction that is only “probably settled.”
The committee structure also keeps the process permissionless without requiring every provisioner to validate every stage. Stake secures participation, while committee selection distributes proposal, validation and ratification duties across the network.
This is why Succinct Attestation is more than Dusk’s version of PoS.
It is the finality engine underneath DuskDS—and because DuskEVM settles through DuskDS, that certainty also supports applications built with familiar EVM tools.
Privacy protects the transaction data.
Succinct Attestation makes the resulting state final.
For financial infrastructure, Dusk needs both.
@Dusk | #dusk
I used to think consensus was mostly about deciding who gets to produce the next block.
Succinct Attestation made me look at it differently.
On DuskDS, stakers running provisioner nodes do not all perform the same job in every round. Selected provisioners move a candidate block through three separate stages.
One provisioner proposes it.
A committee validates it.
Another committee ratifies the result.
That final step is what matters to me. Once the block is ratified, Dusk reaches deterministic finality. The network does not leave market participants waiting through several confirmations while wondering whether the transaction could still be reorganized.
For normal crypto transfers, that may feel like a technical improvement.
For the regulated markets @Dusk is targeting, it affects the actual meaning of settlement.
If a tokenized bond changes ownership, the issuer, investor and venue need one final state. Payment coordination, transfer restrictions and ownership records cannot safely depend on a transaction that is only “probably settled.”
The committee structure also keeps the process permissionless without requiring every provisioner to validate every stage. Stake secures participation, while committee selection distributes proposal, validation and ratification duties across the network.
This is why Succinct Attestation is more than Dusk’s version of PoS.
It is the finality engine underneath DuskDS—and because DuskEVM settles through DuskDS, that certainty also supports applications built with familiar EVM tools.
Privacy protects the transaction data.
Succinct Attestation makes the resulting state final.
For financial infrastructure, Dusk needs both.
@Dusk | #dusk
Verified
Bond yields are climbing fast across Japan, the US and Europe.
That matters because higher yields make borrowing more expensive and can pull money away from risk assets.
For crypto and stocks, this is one macro trend I’m watching closely. If yields keep rising, market pressure could stay elevated.
#COWRises55.77%In24h #SP500EarningsBeatExpectations
That matters because higher yields make borrowing more expensive and can pull money away from risk assets.
For crypto and stocks, this is one macro trend I’m watching closely. If yields keep rising, market pressure could stay elevated.
#COWRises55.77%In24h #SP500EarningsBeatExpectations
Log in to explore more content