扶摇直上118

Yesterday, while grabbing late-night snacks with a friend, we talked about the RWA track. It definitely feels lively lately, but to be honest, I haven’t seen many projects that can actually blend compliance and privacy together. Most either go to the extreme to achieve compliance but have little to no privacy on-chain, or they max out privacy protection, but regulators take one look and shake their heads.

Dusk is taking the third path. After the mainnet goes live on January 7, 2026, it will partner deeply with the Dutch licensed exchange NPEX to bring more than €300 million in tokenized securities on-chain. This isn’t just a concept partnership. NPEX holds full EU licenses across the stack, including MTF, Broker, and ECSP. The entire chain—from trading and settlement to custody—follows a legitimate “mainstream” route.
What’s even more worth watching is how quickly ecosystem partners are converging. Chainlink’s oracle integration gives the ecosystem real-time data capabilities. Quantoz has launched an EURQ stablecoin bridge, opening a channel between traditional finance and on-chain ecosystems. It’s also said that bank-level custody solutions are in progress. From the oracle data layer to the stablecoin protocol, and to deep involvement from financial institutions, multi-dimensional integration is taking shape.
But that said, having many partners doesn’t automatically mean the ecosystem will succeed. The real test is this: how much actual trading will truly happen on-chain? Will financial institutions actually use this technology—rather than just trying it out for the novelty? An ecosystem with no real transaction volume and no assets truly moving on-chain is useless, no matter how many partner announcements it has. @Dusk

I’ll keep tracking the progress of real-world assets being tokenized and put on-chain, not letting myself be led by partnership announcement news.

I’ve always felt that the RWA track has long moved on from the pure narrative-driven hype stage. The key question for whether a project can actually be implemented and survive is the core compatibility between compliance and privacy. Leveraging the EU’s complete compliance credentials and aligning with traditional financial institutions, Dusk has an irreplaceable differentiated advantage in the space—fully avoiding the industry pain points of non-compliant privacy-chain RWAs and traditional RWAs without privacy protection. Now that the project’s partnership and deployment plans are already in place, the next core focus is go-live conversion. Once real-world asset tokenization scales on-chain, it will become a benchmark project that truly achieves commercial-grade implementation for the RWA track. #dusk $DUSK

I find that one of the biggest problems with many Memes today is that their stories are too short.
When the hype comes, everyone rushes in together; when the hype fades, it all ends.
And one interesting thing about $niulai is that there’s also the IP behind it— the movie “Niu Lai.”
At least on the content level, there’s still more that can be told.
The project wants to use Memes to connect Web2 and Web3. I think this direction is worth watching. #niulai #牛来

The partnership between Dusk and NPEX has been getting a lot of buzz in the industry. But when I dug into the details, I found that some things deserve a question mark.

The collaboration is real. NPEX is a licensed exchange in the Netherlands, and it holds the full suite of licenses, including the MTF Broker ECSP. Dusk and NPEX signed an official agreement to build what will be Europe’s first blockchain-driven securities trading platform. Quantoz also issued a compliant euro-pegged stablecoin, EURQ, on Dusk. None of this is made up. But if you think carefully, NPEX itself is a licensed exchange. The question is: why did it choose to use Dusk’s chain for settlement—because Dusk’s technology is truly irreplaceable, or because Dusk held 10% of NPEX shares in its early days? Business relationships and product value are sometimes two different things.

Another issue is how compliant trading under the MTF framework can be reconciled with DeFi’s composability. Regulated securities trading requires KYC, limits, and the ability to freeze permissions, but DeFi’s core spirit is permissionless. Dusk uses the XSC standard to bridge that contradiction—at least in theory—but in practice, will it end up pleasing neither side? Institutions feel it’s too DeFi. DeFi users feel it’s too institutionalized. @Dusk
And the most fundamental point: if regulatory directions change—if the fine print under MiCA or MiFID II gets adjusted—can Dusk’s tightly coupled architecture respond flexibly? Compliance is a double-edged sword: the tighter you bind, the harder it is to turn around.

I’m not denying Dusk’s direction. But between “the direction is right” and “it can actually succeed,” there are countless execution details. Keep watching, but don’t jump to conclusions yet.
#dusk $DUSK

While translating the Dusk technical documentation, I noticed a detail. Its dual-account model is not simply a side-by-side of a public system and a privacy system; instead, it has clear layers.

The underlying DuskDS is responsible for settlement and data availability, striving for determinism and efficient finality. Moonlight uses a public account model, with balances and transaction records fully transparent, making it suitable for compliance scenarios. Phoenix uses a UTXO model, hiding both the amount and the counterparty via zero-knowledge proofs. The upper-layer DuskEVM is compatible with Solidity, so developers can deploy applications directly without rewriting code.

What truly intrigued me is the modular design. The privacy primitives and the compliance modules Hedger and Citadel are independent components. Sensitive transactions are protected by encryption, yet under compliance requirements they can generate verifiable proofs. Citadel handles the identity layer: after a one-time KYC, it only provides a yes/no result, leaving no unnecessary traces.

That said, after finishing the document @Dusk , I still hesitated. No matter how elegant the technology is, it can’t escape real-world issues. Regulatory requirements differ from country to country, and the complexity of the system itself introduces new risks. What Dusk is truly trying to do is to put both the openness of a public chain and the confidentiality of finance into the same framework. If this path really works, on-chain finance may no longer have to choose between being either transparent and exposed, or completely hidden. But before then, there are still too many variables to be verified.
#dusk $DUSK

Yesterday I went out for a late-night snack with a few KOL friends, and while chatting about RWA everyone was talking about how big the scale is and things like a trillion-dollar market. But based on what I observed, I noticed a core issue: most projects simply can’t manage the privacy and compliance side of things—they’re fundamentally at odds. On-chain traditional financial assets can’t be fully public: institutions can’t reveal all the commercial secrets like counterparties and amounts. But regulatory requirements are there too, and the hard requirement is that none of it can be missing.

I found that @Dusk Dusk has found a breakthrough here. It didn’t take the shortcut of synthetic-asset-style schemes; instead, it directly supports the native issuance, trading, and settlement of securities and other financial instruments. The underlying technical support is a combination of PLONK zero-knowledge proofs, the Phoenix trading model, and Zedger’s hybrid privacy solution. What makes me feel it’s credible is that Dusk isn’t just selling promises. It’s working with the Dutch licensed financial institution NPEX, and plans to launch €300 million worth of RWA securities products.
What does €300 million mean in practical terms?
This isn’t “transaction volume” cobbled together by a few NFT projects—it’s real, on-chain traditional financial assets backed by real money. And Dusk has also made specific adaptations for regulatory frameworks in the EU such as MiFID II and MiCA.

To be frank, there are too many RWA projects that talk a big game, but among the few that can tackle technology, compliance, and institutional partnerships all at once, Dusk is one of the rare ones I’ve seen.
#dusk $DUSK

With the development of Web3, many people are starting to focus not only on short-term returns, but also on the long-term value behind the projects.
#宇宙之心 wants to build a digital civilization ecosystem based on interstellar storytelling, driven forward together by the community and the team.
This vision is quite grand, and what matters afterward is whether the ecosystem can continue to grow.
#宇宙之心 $MarsCoin

I’ve been watching SanDisk closely these past few weeks. This stock really delivers an intense, full-blown cycle-stock frenzy. In the early stage, it rode the AI storage boom and surged relentlessly, setting new all-time highs. A lot of people made a fortune. But after the peak, it immediately went through a violent pullback, with the maximum drawdown being extremely frightening.

To be honest, the company’s fundamentals haven’t completely fallen apart. It has many major customers and long-term supply contract orders, and the NAND flash industry’s supply-demand situation is still relatively tight—its earnings base is still there. However, the stock rose too fast at the beginning, and valuations were pushed to very high levels. Once sector sentiment cools off, profit-takers rush to exit aggressively, and the share price just can’t hold up.

Recently, there’s been another rebound. But there’s a heavy amount of trapped supply above, so it’s not as simple as casually breaking to new highs again. Right now it’s a tug-of-war between sentiment and fundamentals: on one side is AI storage’s long-term demand, and on the other the market’s concern about whether a high valuation can hold.

My take is that this stock is extremely volatile—up and down is the norm. Don’t just assume that because it’s down a lot, it’s automatically a golden opportunity. And don’t blindly rush in just because there’s a rebound. Future earnings report data will be an important signal—whether performance can match today’s share price. In terms of trading, you must control your position size. For high-volatility instruments, the risks are right out in the open—don’t let the market move your emotions and decisions.
#TradFi晒单

I found that when many people see the integration plan between Babylon and GoMining at first glance, they only briefly interpret it as a standard combination: BTC staking plus mining yield stacking. But after carefully dissecting the full logic of the entire system, I realized that this is, in essence, an extreme stress test of the TBV infrastructure.

This collaboration plan will activate a BTC asset volume of 1,000 BTC, corresponding to a value of approximately $75 million USD. Users can lock their personal BTC assets through TBV; the system will programmatically borrow funds and directly invest them into GoMining’s mining products. All mining rewards are settled and distributed in native BTC form.

#baby

I think the most industry-worthy point of attention in the whole process is not the final mining ROI, but the complex, multi-layer capital flow logic. In the past, TBV’s application scenarios were relatively straightforward: essentially three basic steps—lock BTC assets, borrow stablecoins, and repay at maturity to unlock. But after integrating with GoMining this time, the entire chain link adds key stages: the borrowed funds must be programmatically committed to the mining product, and the mining-generated returns must continuously flow back into the ecosystem.

This means that within TBV’s operating pipeline, it must simultaneously carry three independent capital flows: lending/borrowing, investment, and return flows.

$BABY With the support of a large volume of 1,000 BTC, even a minor delay or hiccup in any part of the process will be multiplied, directly impacting overall stability. Everyone should know that GoMining’s industry scale is not small—the platform has cumulatively served 5 million users, and its total network hashrate ranks consistently among the top ten globally. Babylon’s staking vault holds a massive 56,853 BTC, but having an inventory asset advantage does not mean TBV can indiscriminately handle all kinds of complex asset transfer and flow models.

So I believe that @BabylonLabs_io this deep integration with GoMining is the most realistic hands-on stress test: the core is not to verify whether the mining yields are high or low, but to test TBV’s capacity to carry complex, multi-layer capital flows and its stability.

Many people watching the collaboration between Babylon and GoMining may simply think it’s a combination of BTC collateralization plus mining yield generation. But after carefully breaking down the entire logic, I found that this is actually an extreme stress test for the TBV infrastructure. This partnership plan will activate as many as 1,000 BTC, worth approximately $75 million. Users can lock their BTC through TBV; the system will programmatically borrow funds and invest them into GoMining’s mining products. All mining rewards will be settled and distributed in the form of native BTC.

I’ve monitored this circulation mechanism end to end. What’s most worth investigating isn’t the yield rate that everyone is most concerned about, but rather the overall complex logic behind the flow of funds. Previously, TBV’s application scenarios were relatively straightforward: lock BTC, borrow stablecoins, repay at maturity, and then unlock. But this time, the collaboration with GoMining adds a key step: the borrowed funds must be programmatically self-committed into the mining product, and the mining-generated收益 needs to flow back into the ecosystem. Moreover, the liquidation logic must also adapt to the mining business’s cycle cadence. This means that within TBV’s operating pipeline of @BabylonLabs_io TBV, it must simultaneously carry three independent fund flow lines: lending/borrowing, investment, and yield回流. With a large scale of 1,000 BTC, any tiny delay or hiccup will be infinitely amplified and directly affect the overall operation.

Everyone knows that Babylon’s staked vault currently holds 56,853 BTC. But a large stockpile of capital doesn’t mean TBV can seamlessly, without discrimination, accommodate all kinds of complex asset flows. In my view, the integration test with GoMining is highly meaningful—not to test whether mining yields are high or low, but to validate TBV’s stability and its ability to withstand pressure when handling complex, multi-threaded fund circulation.
#baby $BABY

Last night’s SanDisk chart movement—this is playing with your heart in your throat.

Before the market opened, I checked: it was down nearly 8%, and my heart basically sank. I thought today I’d probably have to eat a loss plate again—then after the open, the situation flipped completely. It surged all the way up, and by the close it was up more than 6%. It swung 14 percentage points in one day. That feeling is like riding a roller coaster—if you’ve got a weak heart, you really can’t handle it. This kind of V-shaped reversal is the ultimate test for people: anyone who cut losses early got wiped out on the bottom.

I’ve learned my lesson. For these high-volatility stocks, either set a hard stop-loss and hold on, or don’t go in with a heavy position. Today I was lucky—I wasn’t shaken out.
#TradFi晒单

This big bullish candle in U.S. stocks today came a bit unexpectedly. The Dow surged by nearly 700 points, setting a new all-time closing high at 53,178. The Nasdaq rose by more than 2 points, and the S&P 500 also climbed by 1.48%. On the news front, it was said that Trump canceled the plan to strike Iran, causing oil prices to plunge by 7% on the spot. U.S. Treasury yields also slid downward in tandem. The market suddenly exhaled a huge sigh of relief.
But I still feel a little uneasy. How long can this kind of rebound driven by geopolitical developments last? Don’t let it turn into another one-day wonder of a rally.
#TradFi晒单

Let me ask you—no need for wrapping, no need for a cross-chain bridge, and no need to hand over private keys? What exactly is the difference between this Babylon setup and wBTC.

When it comes to today’s mainstream BTC lending solutions, they can’t get around three things: wrapping wBTCcbBTC, a cross-chain bridge, or multisig custody.

You send BTC to the custodian, and they give you an ERC-20 version of BTC. Then you go deposit that token on Aave to borrow. But there’s one fatal assumption throughout the entire chain: the custodian won’t run away, the bridge won’t get hacked, and the multisig committee won’t collude. Cross-chain bridge hacks over the past few years have already proven how fragile that assumption is.

Babylon’s TBV flips this whole logic on its head. The BTC never leaves the Bitcoin mainnet from start to finish—it’s locked in UTXOs controlled by Taproot scripts. The redemption conditions aren’t based on the custodian’s approval, but on on-chain rules: once the loan is repaid, the ZK proof passes, and the UTXO is unlocked. There’s no intermediary holding your private key, no cross-chain bridge waiting to be hacked, and no wrapped assets that depend on a third-party issuer.

Stani Kulechov, the founder of Aave, publicly supported this proposal on X and even did the math: Babylon currently has over $4 billion worth of BTC staked. If this collateralized lending logic runs, the liquidity released could far exceed that figure. @BabylonLabs_io

I think this approach is being advanced more slowly than competitors that bridge and offer higher subsidies. But once you run the flow through the testnet yourself, you’ll understand: the staking process doesn’t require you to hand your BTC to anyone. It’s slower, yes—but the underlying trust assumptions are different. #baby $BABY

As a long-time U.S. stock player who has been watching the market closely for years, the recent volatility has made me feel restless. At the start of August, the three major indexes appear steady: the Dow is up 0.53%, the S&P is up 0.7%, and the Nasdaq is up 1%. But the data from Goldman Sachs has me on edge—downside selling pressure is 10 times the upside buying demand. This means that if the market even slightly stirs, it could trigger a scramble. I believe August is likely to see an intensified range-bound market and greater sector rotation, with tech stocks showing even more pronounced swings.

Let me focus on the one I’m heavily invested in: SanDisk (SNDK). From the June peak of $2,335 down to over $1,200 now, my account net value has also been on a roller coaster. Last Friday, it fell 5.09%, but then rebounded 6% after hours. This kind of extreme volatility makes me both anxious and excited.

Why didn’t I cut my position—instead, I added more in the $1,100–$1,200 range? First, the earnings report on August 5 is a key milestone; the market will test whether the AI storage demand is real. Second, Bernstein raised its price target to $3,000. The core logic is that long-term supply agreements (LTA) have changed the industry’s cycle characteristics, so profit volatility should be reduced. Finally, the supply-side reform for memory chips is the real driver of this round of gains. SanDisk’s fabless model is actually an advantage.

My strategy is clear: for U.S. stocks in August, I’ll focus on defense. For SanDisk, it’s a “small-position trade before the earnings report, then decide the big direction based on performance after the report.” If earnings beat expectations, I’ll keep holding; if it misses, I’ll cut the position by half to lock in profits. After all, in the current market environment, surviving matters more than making even more gains.
#TradFi晒单

Yes yes, I got it polished again! This Sandisk money-making thing feels pretty easy too. I’ll watch the K-line—making a few dozen yuan a day doesn’t seem that hard. Today I’ll aim to make 100 yuan. Earn 100 every day—doesn’t that sound easier and freer than going to a factory? The evening fluctuation is too big; daytime is just right!
#TradFi晒单

I just discovered that the Babylon official website has a line that most people skip: TBV itself isn’t a DeFi product—it’s just a primitive. The real products are the ones built on top of it. I read that sentence three times before I realized its weight.

What is TBV? It’s a protocol that turns BTC into programmable assets without taking it off the main chain, without bridging across chains, and without custodianship. But Babylon doesn’t plan to hold on to this mechanism and use it to do lending, trading, or derivatives. Instead, it does this: it packages TBV as an SDK—light-client verification module front-end toolchain—and then hands everything over to developers.

@BabylonLabs_io

In other words, Babylon isn’t building a whole building. It’s building a set of prefabricated panels. Anyone who wants to use BTC as collateral can pick up these panels and start working—no need to write Bitcoin scripts from scratch, and no need to set up their own light-node verification.

The collaboration with Aave is a typical example: Babylon’s only job is to lock BTC into a Vault and transmit the proof of state. As for how lending works and how liquidations happen—that’s all Aave’s own Core Lending Spoke and Vault Swap Spoke business.

The brilliance of this design philosophy is that it doesn’t have to guess what the market needs. Developers will build things with TBV that even Babylon itself hasn’t thought of. And as a governance token for this hand-tool factory, whether BABY’s value can take off depends not on how many products Babylon builds itself, but on how many developers are willing to pick up this wrench.

#baby $BABY

When I was reading the @BabylonLabs_io whitepaper yesterday, I found that Phase-3 is the most core step in Babylon’s roadmap—and also the most technically challenging one. Its goal is very simple: to let a staked BTC provide security guarantees for multiple PoS chains at the same time.

Sounds great, right? But when I think through the technical implementation, it gives me a headache. In the Phase-1 and Phase-2 models, one BTC corresponds to the security needs of only one chain. Stakers delegate their BTC to a Finality Provider, and that provider only needs to deliver finality confirmation services to a single chain. The logic is clear. @BabylonLabs_io

In a multi-staking scenario, the same BTC needs to serve N chains at the same time. Each chain has its own validator set, its own slashing rules, and its own consensus parameters. If the Finality Provider for any one chain misbehaves and gets slashed, the slashing comes from the same BTC. The other innocent chains are harmed as well. This is risk contagion.

Babylon’s solution is to use Babylon Genesis, a Cosmos SDK chain, as a coordination layer. All multi-staking states, slashing signals, and reward distribution are routed and managed through Genesis. The issue is that Genesis itself is a PoS chain, with its own validator set and consensus mechanism. Ultimately, the security of multi-staking depends on Genesis not having problems. That sounds a bit like circular reasoning: using one PoS chain to manage the security that Bitcoin provides to other PoS chains.

Babylon’s testnet for Phase-3 went live in Q3 2025, with the original plan to launch the mainnet in Q4. As of July 2026, it’s still delayed. My guess is that the technical complexity is far higher than the team anticipated. Multi-chain state synchronization, atomicity of cross-chain slashing, and fair reward allocation—each of these is a hard nut to crack.
#baby $BABY

I have read OpenZeppelin’s Babylon special security research report released in April 2026. The report genuinely discloses four core protocol vulnerabilities, all concentrated in weak points during boundary-state transitions—risks that ordinary users and developers can easily overlook.

The first is a delegate-state handling vulnerability. Babylon divides the on-chain operating cycle into multiple stages, and any changes to the permissions for added or exiting validator nodes are deferred until the boundary of the cycle, when they are updated all at once. This timing node triggers multiple system changes simultaneously: the validator replacement voting weight reset and state refresh synchronization happen together, putting extremely heavy computational pressure on the on-chain state machine. It is very easy for logic errors and data inconsistencies to occur.@BabylonLabs_io
Among the most alarming is the slashing-mechanism bypass vulnerability. The protocol itself sets strict mandatory slashing rules, but under certain special boundary conditions, malicious validators can find a path to circumvent penalties. Babylon’s slashing execution highly depends on off-chain committee threshold-signature verification. Because there is a natural synchronization delay between off-chain components and on-chain data, this time difference becomes an exploitable attack window.

In fact, this is not the first time the project has exposed a security issue. In January 2026, a BLS vote extension mechanism vulnerability was reported. Malicious validators could deliberately omit the block hash field, inducing the entire network’s set of validating nodes to collectively crash at a cycle boundary. Fortunately, the team fixed the vulnerability in time, and no actual asset loss occurred.

Before and after, Babylon engaged multiple professional auditing firms and also launched a bug bounty program. However, audits can never eliminate all hidden vulnerabilities. The issues uncovered by the white-hat teams are sufficient to show that there are still many security defects in the protocol’s underlying layer that have not been discovered.
#baby $BABY

Only a few days left until SanDisk’s financial results are released. Will it really take off this time? The market has been moving wildly these past few days. Even when I’m just doing short-term trades, I’m still on edge—I could get caught and lose a few cuts in an instant. I’d be terrified to death!
Doing a few trades a day just to make a bit of money for groceries would be fine too. I still really believe in SanDisk—don’t keep falling!
#TradFi晒单

I found that Babylon’s founding team background is still pretty hardcore in the crypto space.
The founder, David Tse, is a professor at Stanford University and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. The co-founder, Fisher Yu, is also an expert in blockchain security and cryptography. There are many Chinese faces in the team, but the core management is mostly made up of overseas backgrounds.

The advantage of an “academic-leaning” startup is that the technical foundation is solid. The downside is that, in many cases, they don’t really know how to communicate with retail investors.

In the whitepaper, those cryptography terms and protocol design details—ordinary people simply can’t get through them.

Also, Babylon has already completed multiple rounds of financing, totaling $96 million. This @BabylonLabs_io financing scale isn’t small in the 2024 market environment. But having a large amount of funding doesn’t necessarily mean the project will succeed. I think the key is where the money is spent—technical development, ecosystem building, and security audits. Every one of these is costly work.

To ensure security, Babylon hired two teams, Coinspect and Zellic, to conduct audits. One is a professional team specializing in Bitcoin script security, and the other has a background in white-hat and black-hat hacking. Even after security audits, vulnerabilities may still exist. Risks like smart contract issues and protocol failure are also explicitly mentioned in the official documentation. Whether you acknowledge these risks is up to you.
#baby $BABY

I’ve always remembered that in the early days when I was tinkering with Ethereum L2 Rollups, the biggest headache for me was those expensive Data Availability (DA) bills. I initially thought Babylon’s Bitcoin Timestamping protocol was only there to provide finality for PoS chains—a purely cryptographic game. But after repeatedly wrestling with its technical documentation, Section 4, I realized this is not a free lunch. In essence, it’s a BTC DA service wrapped in cryptography, with an extremely unique cost structure.

I reworked the logic: For a PoS chain to achieve Bitcoin-level immutability, it must push its key data—such as checkpoints and changes to the validator set—through Babylon into Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN. The whitepaper mentions it lightly, but I ran a simple calculation. A typical OP_RETURN script is only 80 bytes. If a PoS chain needs to frequently anchor state to maintain a fast unbonding experience at the seconds level, that means it has to grab tens of thousands of OP_RETURN slots on the BTC network every month.
This made me feel that simply looking at how many chains Babylon has onboarded TVL-wise is pointless—that’s just storytelling.
I’m going to focus on one hard metric: the ratio of the Gas fees that a PoS chain pays to Bitcoin miners to Babylon’s own revenue. If the Gas fees and token value generated by the PoS chain itself can’t cover the DA rent it pays to the Bitcoin network in order to align consensus, then this model can’t be sustained long-term. @BabylonLabs_io

My rationality is that BABY’s terminal value doesn’t depend on how much security it outputs, but on whether it can build a low-cost, high-efficiency data anchoring market. It isn’t free security—it’s a commercial activity that requires precisely calculating the DA cost for every byte. Until this system is proven economically viable, I’m still keeping a clear, rational head.
#baby $BABY