ARI ZAIM
3.7k Posts
ARI ZAIM
Square VerifiedBINANCE KOL
5 Following
29.6K+ Followers
41.3K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Live
Been digging into Dusk a bit more lately, and one thing changed how I look at it.
I originally thought the main story was pretty simple: privacy-focused L1 built for financial apps.
But I’m not sure privacy itself is the interesting part anymore.
Dusk mainnet went live in January 2025 after years of testnets and development. Now there are basically two sides to the stack: DuskVM for the confidential/ZK side, and DuskEVM for developers who already know Solidity.
Then I came across the NPEX connection.
$DUSK says there’s €200M+ in confirmed issuance tied to NPEX, which already has 20,000+ investors.
Nice numbers, but they don’t prove much yet.
What I find more interesting is what #dusk is actually trying to solve underneath that: keeping financial activity private without making it invisible to regulators.
That’s a harder problem than just adding privacy.
Public blockchains expose too much for some financial use cases. Fully closed systems lose a lot of what makes blockchains useful in the first place.
@Dusk seems to be trying to sit somewhere between those two.
A few years ago the question was whether the network and its privacy tech would work.
Now the question looks more practical: will people actually use it?
I’d rather watch real settlement volume, active investors and confidential transaction activity than another partnership number.
That should tell us much more.
I originally thought the main story was pretty simple: privacy-focused L1 built for financial apps.
But I’m not sure privacy itself is the interesting part anymore.
Dusk mainnet went live in January 2025 after years of testnets and development. Now there are basically two sides to the stack: DuskVM for the confidential/ZK side, and DuskEVM for developers who already know Solidity.
Then I came across the NPEX connection.
$DUSK says there’s €200M+ in confirmed issuance tied to NPEX, which already has 20,000+ investors.
Nice numbers, but they don’t prove much yet.
What I find more interesting is what #dusk is actually trying to solve underneath that: keeping financial activity private without making it invisible to regulators.
That’s a harder problem than just adding privacy.
Public blockchains expose too much for some financial use cases. Fully closed systems lose a lot of what makes blockchains useful in the first place.
@Dusk seems to be trying to sit somewhere between those two.
A few years ago the question was whether the network and its privacy tech would work.
Now the question looks more practical: will people actually use it?
I’d rather watch real settlement volume, active investors and confidential transaction activity than another partnership number.
That should tell us much more.
Verified
Spent some more time looking through TermMax and I think I was paying attention to the wrong number at first.
TVL is around $33M, but roughly $22M is already sitting in active loans. Most liquidity is still on Ethereum too, even though TermMax has expanded across multiple chains.
Nothing there immediately jumps off the page.
What made me look twice was how the borrowing itself is structured.
Instead of rates constantly moving with pool utilization, #TermMax lets borrowers lock in a rate for a specific maturity. That distinction felt more relevant after seeing the protocol move into markets where tokenized stocks can be used as collateral.
It raises an interesting question.
As more real-world assets move onchain, maybe predictable financing becomes more important than constantly chasing whichever lending pool has the cheapest rate today.
That could be where fixed-term markets start finding a more natural use case.
But I’m not convinced the current numbers prove that yet.
$22M in active loans tells us people are borrowing. It doesn’t tell us whether they actually value fixed-rate borrowing enough to keep coming back.
I’d much rather see what borrowers do when those positions mature.
Do they repay and disappear, or roll into another term?
That feels like a much better signal of whether @TermMax is building a habit rather than just attracting temporary liquidity.
Curious if anyone has found good data on this.
TVL is around $33M, but roughly $22M is already sitting in active loans. Most liquidity is still on Ethereum too, even though TermMax has expanded across multiple chains.
Nothing there immediately jumps off the page.
What made me look twice was how the borrowing itself is structured.
Instead of rates constantly moving with pool utilization, #TermMax lets borrowers lock in a rate for a specific maturity. That distinction felt more relevant after seeing the protocol move into markets where tokenized stocks can be used as collateral.
It raises an interesting question.
As more real-world assets move onchain, maybe predictable financing becomes more important than constantly chasing whichever lending pool has the cheapest rate today.
That could be where fixed-term markets start finding a more natural use case.
But I’m not convinced the current numbers prove that yet.
$22M in active loans tells us people are borrowing. It doesn’t tell us whether they actually value fixed-rate borrowing enough to keep coming back.
I’d much rather see what borrowers do when those positions mature.
Do they repay and disappear, or roll into another term?
That feels like a much better signal of whether @TermMax is building a habit rather than just attracting temporary liquidity.
Curious if anyone has found good data on this.
I’ve been looking into Dusk again, and one thing changed how I was thinking about it.
At first, I assumed the interesting part was simply privacy. Private transactions, confidential contracts, the usual stuff.
But I’m starting to think that misses the harder problem Dusk is trying to solve.
Mainnet went live in January 2025. Since then, roughly 220M DUSK has been staked across around 199 active nodes, while the minimum stake to run a provisioner is 1,000 $DUSK .
Then there’s NPEX.
#dusk says €200M+ in issuance has been confirmed through the platform, which already has 20,000+ investors.
Sounds good on paper, but I’m not sure those are the numbers that matter yet.
What caught my attention is the way @Dusk approaches confidentiality. With XSC, the idea isn’t to make everything invisible. It’s to keep financial information private while still leaving room for compliance and selective disclosure when required.
That feels like a much more difficult balance.
And it hasn’t been a perfectly clean road either. The AEGIS hard fork in March addressed 39 security findings, including 7 critical ones. No exploitation was found, but it’s a useful reality check.
So the metric I’m waiting for isn’t another partnership or issuance announcement.
I want to see how much of these assets actually end up onchain, how often they move, and whether people genuinely use the confidentiality layer.
That should tell us much more than the headline numbers.
At first, I assumed the interesting part was simply privacy. Private transactions, confidential contracts, the usual stuff.
But I’m starting to think that misses the harder problem Dusk is trying to solve.
Mainnet went live in January 2025. Since then, roughly 220M DUSK has been staked across around 199 active nodes, while the minimum stake to run a provisioner is 1,000 $DUSK .
Then there’s NPEX.
#dusk says €200M+ in issuance has been confirmed through the platform, which already has 20,000+ investors.
Sounds good on paper, but I’m not sure those are the numbers that matter yet.
What caught my attention is the way @Dusk approaches confidentiality. With XSC, the idea isn’t to make everything invisible. It’s to keep financial information private while still leaving room for compliance and selective disclosure when required.
That feels like a much more difficult balance.
And it hasn’t been a perfectly clean road either. The AEGIS hard fork in March addressed 39 security findings, including 7 critical ones. No exploitation was found, but it’s a useful reality check.
So the metric I’m waiting for isn’t another partnership or issuance announcement.
I want to see how much of these assets actually end up onchain, how often they move, and whether people genuinely use the confidentiality layer.
That should tell us much more than the headline numbers.
TermMax a bit more lately, and I think I was looking at it the wrong way at first.
I saw “fixed-rate borrowing” and assumed that was basically the story.
But looking through how the protocol has changed, I’m not so sure anymore.
@TermMax is around $34M in TVL, with active loans in roughly the same range, and Ethereum still holds most of that liquidity. More recently, V2 brought curator vaults and limit orders, while TermMax Alpha started exploring options-style products.
None of those numbers or features really jumped out at me on their own.
What did was the pattern behind them.
A fixed-rate loan asks what money should cost between now and a specific date. An option asks a similar question from another angle: what is a future outcome worth today?
It feels like #TermMax is slowly experimenting around that idea rather than just building another lending market.
Whether that actually works is a different question.
More maturities, assets and products also mean more places where liquidity can get split. A decent TVL number can hide that pretty easily.
So the data I’d really like to see isn’t higher TVL.
I want to know what happens when these positions mature.
Do borrowers come back? Does liquidity roll into the next maturity? Are the same markets still active without heavy incentives?
That probably tells us more than the headline numbers do.
Still digging into it. Would be interested to compare notes with anyone following TermMax closely.
I saw “fixed-rate borrowing” and assumed that was basically the story.
But looking through how the protocol has changed, I’m not so sure anymore.
@TermMax is around $34M in TVL, with active loans in roughly the same range, and Ethereum still holds most of that liquidity. More recently, V2 brought curator vaults and limit orders, while TermMax Alpha started exploring options-style products.
None of those numbers or features really jumped out at me on their own.
What did was the pattern behind them.
A fixed-rate loan asks what money should cost between now and a specific date. An option asks a similar question from another angle: what is a future outcome worth today?
It feels like #TermMax is slowly experimenting around that idea rather than just building another lending market.
Whether that actually works is a different question.
More maturities, assets and products also mean more places where liquidity can get split. A decent TVL number can hide that pretty easily.
So the data I’d really like to see isn’t higher TVL.
I want to know what happens when these positions mature.
Do borrowers come back? Does liquidity roll into the next maturity? Are the same markets still active without heavy incentives?
That probably tells us more than the headline numbers do.
Still digging into it. Would be interested to compare notes with anyone following TermMax closely.
$BTC doesn’t need to explode yet.
The BTC/Nasdaq ratio is already 15% off the bottom after a brutal 64% drop.
The level I’m watching: 3.0.
Below it → Nasdaq leads.
Break above it → Bitcoin takes control.
That’s when the bull run could get interesting.
The BTC/Nasdaq ratio is already 15% off the bottom after a brutal 64% drop.
The level I’m watching: 3.0.
Below it → Nasdaq leads.
Break above it → Bitcoin takes control.
That’s when the bull run could get interesting.
Been digging into TermMax again, and I think I was looking at it the wrong way at first.
I assumed the interesting part was simply bringing fixed-rate borrowing to DeFi. Useful, sure, but not exactly a new problem people are trying to solve.
The liquidity side is more interesting.
TermMax launched on mainnet in April 2025, and it’s now sitting around $34M TVL with roughly $30M in active loans. Most of that is still concentrated on Ethereum.
Normally I’d look at those numbers and move on. They’re decent, but they don’t tell you much by themselves.
The issue with fixed-term markets is that $30M of liquidity isn’t really one $30M pool. Different maturities, collateral and chains can split it into much smaller pockets.
That makes the move from V1 to V2 worth watching.
V1 established the AMM approach. V2 seems more focused on pulling fragmented liquidity together, including combining curator liquidity and limit orders when producing quotes.
Small design change on paper, but potentially an important one.
Maybe the real test for TermMax isn’t how much capital it can attract, but how usable that capital becomes once it’s spread across different fixed-term markets.
TVL won’t answer that.
I’d much rather see slippage, depth at different maturities, and how many borrowers actually come back after their first loan.
Still digging through the data. Curious what others tracking TermMax are seeing.
@TermMax #TermMax
I assumed the interesting part was simply bringing fixed-rate borrowing to DeFi. Useful, sure, but not exactly a new problem people are trying to solve.
The liquidity side is more interesting.
TermMax launched on mainnet in April 2025, and it’s now sitting around $34M TVL with roughly $30M in active loans. Most of that is still concentrated on Ethereum.
Normally I’d look at those numbers and move on. They’re decent, but they don’t tell you much by themselves.
The issue with fixed-term markets is that $30M of liquidity isn’t really one $30M pool. Different maturities, collateral and chains can split it into much smaller pockets.
That makes the move from V1 to V2 worth watching.
V1 established the AMM approach. V2 seems more focused on pulling fragmented liquidity together, including combining curator liquidity and limit orders when producing quotes.
Small design change on paper, but potentially an important one.
Maybe the real test for TermMax isn’t how much capital it can attract, but how usable that capital becomes once it’s spread across different fixed-term markets.
TVL won’t answer that.
I’d much rather see slippage, depth at different maturities, and how many borrowers actually come back after their first loan.
Still digging through the data. Curious what others tracking TermMax are seeing.
@TermMax #TermMax
Verified
Been digging into Dusk again and one thing changed how I look at it.
I originally saw it as another privacy-focused L1 trying to bring financial assets onchain. That’s technically true, but I think it misses where the project is heading.
Mainnet went live in January 2025 after the Nocturne phase, which initially ran with 100 team-operated nodes before opening up. Today, becoming a provisioner requires at least 1,000 DUSK.
Those numbers are useful, but they’re not what caught my attention.
It’s the way $DUSK is separating the pieces.
DuskDS handles consensus and settlement. DuskEVM gives developers a familiar Solidity environment, while DuskVM and Hedger handle the parts where confidentiality actually matters.
That might sound like architecture housekeeping, but I think there’s a bigger idea underneath it.
Maybe financial apps don’t need everything to be private. They need the ability to choose what stays confidential while keeping the rest familiar and usable.
Dusk also points to €200M+ in confirmed NPEX issuance and 20,000+ investors. Interesting context, but I’m hesitant to treat that as adoption by itself.
What I really want to see is much simpler: how many assets are actually settling on Dusk, how often they move, and how much of that activity genuinely uses the privacy layer.
That’s probably where we’ll find out whether this design matters in practice.
If anyone has found good data on that, I’d genuinely like to compare notes.
#dusk @Dusk
I originally saw it as another privacy-focused L1 trying to bring financial assets onchain. That’s technically true, but I think it misses where the project is heading.
Mainnet went live in January 2025 after the Nocturne phase, which initially ran with 100 team-operated nodes before opening up. Today, becoming a provisioner requires at least 1,000 DUSK.
Those numbers are useful, but they’re not what caught my attention.
It’s the way $DUSK is separating the pieces.
DuskDS handles consensus and settlement. DuskEVM gives developers a familiar Solidity environment, while DuskVM and Hedger handle the parts where confidentiality actually matters.
That might sound like architecture housekeeping, but I think there’s a bigger idea underneath it.
Maybe financial apps don’t need everything to be private. They need the ability to choose what stays confidential while keeping the rest familiar and usable.
Dusk also points to €200M+ in confirmed NPEX issuance and 20,000+ investors. Interesting context, but I’m hesitant to treat that as adoption by itself.
What I really want to see is much simpler: how many assets are actually settling on Dusk, how often they move, and how much of that activity genuinely uses the privacy layer.
That’s probably where we’ll find out whether this design matters in practice.
If anyone has found good data on that, I’d genuinely like to compare notes.
#dusk @Dusk
Partly True
HUGE: Wall Street may be heading on-chain. 🇺🇸
The SEC is reportedly exploring a framework for 24/7 trading of U.S. stocks using blockchain rails.
If this moves forward, tokenization stops being a crypto experiment and starts becoming financial infrastructure.
Stocks. On-chain. Around the clock.
That’s a much bigger shift than it sounds.
The SEC is reportedly exploring a framework for 24/7 trading of U.S. stocks using blockchain rails.
If this moves forward, tokenization stops being a crypto experiment and starts becoming financial infrastructure.
Stocks. On-chain. Around the clock.
That’s a much bigger shift than it sounds.
Verified
Been digging into Dusk again and one thing keeps coming back to me: maybe calling it a “privacy blockchain” actually undersells what they’re trying to figure out.
Mainnet has been running since January 2025, and development hasn’t exactly stopped there. Rusk reached v1.7.1 in June 2026, while the network architecture is now taking a clearer shape around DuskDS for settlement/data availability, DuskVM for native contracts, and DuskEVM for Solidity applications.
But the part I find more interesting is much simpler.
$DUSK has both Moonlight for public transactions and Phoenix for shielded ones. So privacy isn’t really an all-or-nothing setting. Different activity can have different levels of visibility.
That feels important for financial assets.
Markets need privacy, but they also need moments where information can be verified. Dusk seems to be betting that those two things don’t necessarily have to fight each other.
And I think that’s the harder experiment here.
Not “can we hide transactions with ZK proofs?” We already know that’s possible.
It’s whether you can build markets where information stays private by default, but becomes provable when there’s a legitimate reason to see it.
The tech is moving in that direction.
What I still can’t get from the headline numbers is actual behavior: how many real assets and users are choosing these private flows over the public ones?
That’s probably the metric I’d watch.
Would be curious to compare notes with anyone digging into the same thing.
@Dusk #dusk
Mainnet has been running since January 2025, and development hasn’t exactly stopped there. Rusk reached v1.7.1 in June 2026, while the network architecture is now taking a clearer shape around DuskDS for settlement/data availability, DuskVM for native contracts, and DuskEVM for Solidity applications.
But the part I find more interesting is much simpler.
$DUSK has both Moonlight for public transactions and Phoenix for shielded ones. So privacy isn’t really an all-or-nothing setting. Different activity can have different levels of visibility.
That feels important for financial assets.
Markets need privacy, but they also need moments where information can be verified. Dusk seems to be betting that those two things don’t necessarily have to fight each other.
And I think that’s the harder experiment here.
Not “can we hide transactions with ZK proofs?” We already know that’s possible.
It’s whether you can build markets where information stays private by default, but becomes provable when there’s a legitimate reason to see it.
The tech is moving in that direction.
What I still can’t get from the headline numbers is actual behavior: how many real assets and users are choosing these private flows over the public ones?
That’s probably the metric I’d watch.
Would be curious to compare notes with anyone digging into the same thing.
@Dusk #dusk
Crypto just had a brutal week.
$85B erased from the market.
BTC touched a 31-day low at $62.5K.
ETFs saw their biggest outflows in 6 weeks.
Altcoins closed at levels not seen in nearly 3 years.
Fear is back.
Weeks like this usually reveal who had conviction—and who was only comfortable while everything was green.
Now the real test begins.
$85B erased from the market.
BTC touched a 31-day low at $62.5K.
ETFs saw their biggest outflows in 6 weeks.
Altcoins closed at levels not seen in nearly 3 years.
Fear is back.
Weeks like this usually reveal who had conviction—and who was only comfortable while everything was green.
Now the real test begins.
Verified
Been looking into Dusk again, and something clicked for me that I’d mostly overlooked before.
I always assumed the main thing to watch was the privacy tech. That’s the obvious part of the pitch.
But the more interesting change might be how $DUSK is breaking the system into different pieces.
DuskDS sits underneath as the settlement layer. DuskEVM gives developers the familiar Solidity route, while Hedger is there when an application actually needs confidential transactions.
None of that sounds particularly unusual on its own. Plenty of networks have added EVM compatibility, and “privacy for finance” has been around as an idea for years.
What I find more interesting is the shift from trying to make privacy the defining feature of the whole chain to making it something applications can use when they need it.
That feels closer to how financial markets actually work. Some information needs to be public. Some probably shouldn’t be. And different participants may need to see different things.
There’s also NPEX in the background, which reports €217M+ financed, 100+ successful financings and more than 20,000 investors.
But I’d be careful with those numbers. They show there’s an existing financial network around the idea, not that this activity has moved on-chain.
That’s probably the part worth watching now.
How many securities actually get issued or settled through Dusk, and how much of that activity ends up using the privacy layer?
If anyone’s been digging into those numbers, I’d be curious what you’ve found.
@Dusk #dusk
I always assumed the main thing to watch was the privacy tech. That’s the obvious part of the pitch.
But the more interesting change might be how $DUSK is breaking the system into different pieces.
DuskDS sits underneath as the settlement layer. DuskEVM gives developers the familiar Solidity route, while Hedger is there when an application actually needs confidential transactions.
None of that sounds particularly unusual on its own. Plenty of networks have added EVM compatibility, and “privacy for finance” has been around as an idea for years.
What I find more interesting is the shift from trying to make privacy the defining feature of the whole chain to making it something applications can use when they need it.
That feels closer to how financial markets actually work. Some information needs to be public. Some probably shouldn’t be. And different participants may need to see different things.
There’s also NPEX in the background, which reports €217M+ financed, 100+ successful financings and more than 20,000 investors.
But I’d be careful with those numbers. They show there’s an existing financial network around the idea, not that this activity has moved on-chain.
That’s probably the part worth watching now.
How many securities actually get issued or settled through Dusk, and how much of that activity ends up using the privacy layer?
If anyone’s been digging into those numbers, I’d be curious what you’ve found.
@Dusk #dusk
Government: “Bitcoin is a scam.”
Meanwhile, their currencies:
Print. Inflate. Devalue. Repeat.
Bitcoin didn’t change the rules.
It exposed them.
Meanwhile, their currencies:
Print. Inflate. Devalue. Repeat.
Bitcoin didn’t change the rules.
It exposed them.
When I first came across Dusk, I honestly didn’t think much of it.
Another Layer 1 focused on privacy, this time with a financial angle. I assumed I already understood the idea.
But after spending some time reading about it, one thing kept bothering me: we’ve somehow started treating transparency as if it always means trust.
In crypto, being able to see everything feels reassuring. Transactions are public, balances can be checked, and nobody has to take someone’s word for what happened.
But would we actually want finance to work like that?
I wouldn’t want my financial activity sitting in public forever. A company probably wouldn’t want every position or transaction exposed either.
That’s what made Dusk more interesting to me.
Its approach isn’t really about hiding everything. It’s about letting something be verified without revealing all the information behind it. You can prove that the rules were followed while some details stay private.
It sounds like a small distinction, but I think it matters.
Maybe the real challenge for bringing finance on-chain isn’t making everything transparent. It’s figuring out what genuinely needs to be public and what simply needs to be provable.
I used to think privacy reduced transparency.
Now I’m not so sure.
Maybe good financial infrastructure needs both at the same time — enough openness to verify what matters, and enough privacy for people to actually feel comfortable using it.
Where that line should be drawn is the part I’m still thinking about.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
Another Layer 1 focused on privacy, this time with a financial angle. I assumed I already understood the idea.
But after spending some time reading about it, one thing kept bothering me: we’ve somehow started treating transparency as if it always means trust.
In crypto, being able to see everything feels reassuring. Transactions are public, balances can be checked, and nobody has to take someone’s word for what happened.
But would we actually want finance to work like that?
I wouldn’t want my financial activity sitting in public forever. A company probably wouldn’t want every position or transaction exposed either.
That’s what made Dusk more interesting to me.
Its approach isn’t really about hiding everything. It’s about letting something be verified without revealing all the information behind it. You can prove that the rules were followed while some details stay private.
It sounds like a small distinction, but I think it matters.
Maybe the real challenge for bringing finance on-chain isn’t making everything transparent. It’s figuring out what genuinely needs to be public and what simply needs to be provable.
I used to think privacy reduced transparency.
Now I’m not so sure.
Maybe good financial infrastructure needs both at the same time — enough openness to verify what matters, and enough privacy for people to actually feel comfortable using it.
Where that line should be drawn is the part I’m still thinking about.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
CRYPTO PRICES EXACTLY 1 YEAR AGO
Imagine getting one chance to go back with everything you know today.
Same market.
Different mindset.
Different decisions.
The crazy part about crypto isn’t just how fast prices change — it’s how obvious opportunities can look only after they’re gone.
What would you buy first if you woke up one year ago today?
Imagine getting one chance to go back with everything you know today.
Same market.
Different mindset.
Different decisions.
The crazy part about crypto isn’t just how fast prices change — it’s how obvious opportunities can look only after they’re gone.
What would you buy first if you woke up one year ago today?
My first reaction to Dusk was pretty simple: another blockchain trying to bring privacy to finance.
I didn’t think much beyond that. Privacy has been part of the crypto conversation for years.
But the more I looked into Dusk, the more a different question started bothering me.
We usually talk about blockchain transparency as if more visibility is always better. Every transaction can be checked, the history is there, and nobody has to simply take someone’s word for it.
That’s powerful.
But would we actually want our entire financial lives to work that way?
Businesses don’t want competitors watching every financial move. Investors don’t necessarily want every position exposed. Even ordinary people probably wouldn’t choose to make their finances permanently visible to anyone with an internet connection.
That’s where Dusk became more interesting to me.
The idea behind its confidential contracts and XSC standard isn’t just to hide information. It’s closer to deciding what needs to be visible, who needs to see it, and what can reasonably stay private.
I hadn’t really thought about privacy that way before.
Maybe transparency and privacy aren’t opposites. A system could prove that something happened correctly without revealing every detail behind it.
And that feels like a much bigger question than Dusk itself.
Crypto has spent years building systems where we don’t have to blindly trust someone in the middle.
But if bringing finance on-chain means giving up privacy along the way, have we actually designed something people will want to live with?
I’m still thinking about where that line should be.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
I didn’t think much beyond that. Privacy has been part of the crypto conversation for years.
But the more I looked into Dusk, the more a different question started bothering me.
We usually talk about blockchain transparency as if more visibility is always better. Every transaction can be checked, the history is there, and nobody has to simply take someone’s word for it.
That’s powerful.
But would we actually want our entire financial lives to work that way?
Businesses don’t want competitors watching every financial move. Investors don’t necessarily want every position exposed. Even ordinary people probably wouldn’t choose to make their finances permanently visible to anyone with an internet connection.
That’s where Dusk became more interesting to me.
The idea behind its confidential contracts and XSC standard isn’t just to hide information. It’s closer to deciding what needs to be visible, who needs to see it, and what can reasonably stay private.
I hadn’t really thought about privacy that way before.
Maybe transparency and privacy aren’t opposites. A system could prove that something happened correctly without revealing every detail behind it.
And that feels like a much bigger question than Dusk itself.
Crypto has spent years building systems where we don’t have to blindly trust someone in the middle.
But if bringing finance on-chain means giving up privacy along the way, have we actually designed something people will want to live with?
I’m still thinking about where that line should be.
#dusk @Dusk $DUSK
BREAKING: 🇺🇸 $61.1M just flowed OUT of U.S. Bitcoin ETFs, with BlackRock and Fidelity leading the exits. (bloomingbit)
Institutional money is moving fast.
Is this just a shakeout… or the first warning before a bigger move? 👀
Institutional money is moving fast.
Is this just a shakeout… or the first warning before a bigger move? 👀
Verified
🚨 BREAKING: 🇺🇸 US CPI comes in at 3.4%, exactly matching expectations.
📉 Inflation hits its lowest level in 4 months.
The pressure is cooling… now all eyes are on the Fed. 👀🔥
Please follow me guys
📉 Inflation hits its lowest level in 4 months.
The pressure is cooling… now all eyes are on the Fed. 👀🔥
Please follow me guys
Partly True
🚨 $300 BILLION wiped from U.S. stocks TODAY.
Markets are bleeding as uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz dominates sentiment.
Now all eyes are on Trump — if he announces the Strait is reopening, the reaction could be EXPLOSIVE. 👀🔥
Brace for volatility.
Markets are bleeding as uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz dominates sentiment.
Now all eyes are on Trump — if he announces the Strait is reopening, the reaction could be EXPLOSIVE. 👀🔥
Brace for volatility.
Partly True
🚨 IRAN’S CURRENCY IS CRASHING 🇮🇷
The Iranian Rial has reportedly hit a new all-time low:
💵 $1 = 1,375,550 Rials
At that rate, just $730 = over 1 BILLION Rials. 🤯
When becoming a “billionaire” costs $730, it’s not wealth — it’s currency collapse.
The Iranian Rial has reportedly hit a new all-time low:
💵 $1 = 1,375,550 Rials
At that rate, just $730 = over 1 BILLION Rials. 🤯
When becoming a “billionaire” costs $730, it’s not wealth — it’s currency collapse.
Log in to explore more content