BTC_Fahmi

Əgər son vaxtlar VANRY-ə baxırsınızsa, atmosferi bilirsiniz. Bu, həyəcanlı bir tape deyil. Bu, bir mübarizədir. Bu günə olan vəziyyətə görə, VANRY təxminən 0.00635 ABŞ dolları ilə ticarət edir, 24 saatlıq həcmi təxminən 2.8M dollar və ~2.256B dövriyyədə olan təxminən 14.3M dollar bazar dəyəri var. Bu, bir real müəssisə boru xəttinin əhəmiyyətli ola biləcək qədər kiçikdir, amma eyni zamanda bazarın bunu aylardır görməməsi üçün kifayət qədər kiçikdir, əgər istifadədə heç nə görünməsə.

Bəs insanlar niyə ilk növbədə Vanar-ın “seçilməsi” haqqında danışırlar? Çünki müəssisə AI təqdimatı sakitcə dəyişib. Bir il əvvəl “AI agentləri hər şeyi edəcəklər” idi. İndi “AI agentləri hər şeyi edəcəklər, ta ki, qarışıq verilənlərə toxunana qədər.” Müəssisələr model nümayişləri üzərində yuxusuzluq çəkmirlər. Onlar verilənlərin etibarlılığı, icazələr, audit izləri və iş axınlarının yarısı hələ də PDF-lərdə, elektron poçtlarda və ekran görüntülərində yaşadığı gerçəyinə görə yuxusuzluq çəkirlər.

If you’ve been trading this cycle, you’ve probably felt the vibe shift. General purpose chains still matter, but the market doesn’t reward “we can do everything” the way it used to. Liquidity is pickier. Users are pickier. And the apps that actually print fees tend to look… narrow. Payments. Perps. Gaming. RWAs. One job, done well.

That’s the setup for Plasma. It’s not trying to be the next everything chain. It’s leaning hard into one lane: stablecoin payments on a purpose-built Layer 1, while staying EVM-compatible so builders don’t have to relearn the world.

Now here’s the thing traders keep missing. “Vertical chain” doesn’t just mean a narrative. It usually means the chain is designed around a single retention loop. For payments, the retention loop is brutally simple: transfers need to be instant, cheap, and boringly reliable, or users don’t come back. That’s the retention problem in payments form. People don’t churn because they hate your brand. They churn because the payment flow feels like a science project.

Plasma’s pitch is basically an attack on that churn. It explicitly markets itself as stablecoin-first infrastructure, with a focus on USD₮-style transfers at global scale. And the protocol-level “zero-fee USDT transfers” idea is meant to remove the classic friction of “go buy the gas token first,” which is a small step that kills conversion when you’re doing real payments instead of DeFi hobby trades.

So what’s happening on the tape right now? XPL is hovering around ten cents, and it’s been weak on the 30–90 day view. Binance’s price page shows XPL around $0.10 and down roughly mid-40% over 30 days, which is the kind of drawdown that forces you to ask whether the market is pricing in slower growth or just cycling out of the trade. If you’re looking for the “is this alive” check, you don’t start with vibes. You start with activity.

On-chain, the numbers say Plasma is not a ghost chain. DeFiLlama shows stablecoins circulating on Plasma at about $1.87B, with USDT dominance north of 80%. It also shows meaningful DEX volume (about $15M in 24h) and, importantly for the “payments chain” thesis, tiny chain fees (hundreds of dollars per day), which lines up with the idea that stablecoin transfers are being subsidized or structured to feel close to free at the user level.

That last part cuts both ways. Low fees are great for adoption, but as a trader you should immediately ask: where does value accrue if the core action is intentionally cheap? The answer has to be some mix of monetizing higher-value execution (apps, swaps, credit), capturing flow that leads to other fee-bearing actions, or token economics that reward being the settlement layer for stablecoin movement. Plasma’s bet is that if it wins stablecoin “flow,” everything else can attach to that flow later. But flow is a fickle friend. It shows up fast when incentives are fat, and it leaves fast when incentives thin out.

Plasma also seeded itself aggressively at launch. The team announced the mainnet beta and XPL launch for September 25, 2025, and positioned the network as arriving with roughly $2B in stablecoins active from day one. That kind of bootstrapping is why vertical chains can look dominant early. The risk is you confuse day-one liquidity with day-180 habit.

So where does Plasma fit in the “verticals are taking over” map? It’s basically aiming at the same outcome Tron stumbled into organically: be the place people move dollars around. The difference is Plasma is trying to bake the payments UX into the base layer while still speaking Ethereum’s language so integration is easier. If that works, Plasma becomes less like a generic smart contract platform and more like a specialized rail. Think of it like building an airport optimized for cargo, not a city optimized for tourists. You can still have restaurants and shops, but the design priority is throughput and repeatable logistics.

Here’s my realistic bull case as a trader. Stablecoins on chain keep growing, and a meaningful slice of new issuance and transfer volume shifts to the chains that remove UX friction. If Plasma can hold something like $1.5B $2B in stablecoin float while pushing DEX and app volume up from “tens of millions daily” toward “hundreds of millions daily” over time, you’re no longer trading a story. You’re trading a settlement layer with measurable flow. In that world, a ~$200M ish market cap doesn’t look insane if the chain becomes a default route for dollars in motion and the ecosystem finds sustainable fee capture somewhere above the free-transfer layer.

Now the bear case, and this is the one you can’t hand-wave. One, the stablecoin concentration risk is real. Plasma is heavily dominated by USDT-style liquidity, meaning you’re exposed to whatever Tether does, what regulators do to the on/off ramps, and how exchanges treat that flow. Two, if “zero fee transfers” rely on relayer style sponsorship and policy controls, you need to watch how permissioned that becomes in practice, because the fastest way to lose a payments user is for transfers to intermittently fail, throttle, or get flagged in confusing ways. Three, TVL and volume can be rented. If incentives drop and the bridged liquidity rotates out, the chart won’t warn you nicely.

So what would change my mind either way? I’d get more constructive if stablecoin float stays resilient while organic usage rises, meaning fees and app revenue trend up without needing constant subsidies. I’d get more cautious if stablecoin supply bleeds steadily, DEX volume fades back toward single digit millions daily, and the market cap stays supported only by exchange trading rather than on-chain pull-through.

If you’re looking at Plasma right now, don’t overcomplicate it. Vertical chains win when they become habit, not when they win Twitter. Track stablecoin market cap on the chain, USDT dominance, daily volumes, and whether “free transfers” actually translate into repeat usage and growing app layer revenue. Because if general chains are losing steam, the next winners won’t be the ones that can do everything. They’ll be the ones that do one thing so reliably that users stop thinking about the chain at all.
#Plasma $XPL @Plasma

The first time I tried to explain “onchain finance” to a friend who works in compliance, I made the classic mistake. I talked about faster settlement and global access. They didn’t care. They cared that on most public chains, every transfer is a permanent press release. Who paid who, when, and how much. In real markets, that is not transparency, it is a data leak. Dusk’s bet is that the next wave of financial crypto adoption will not be won by the loudest apps, but by the chain that can handle confidentiality and regulation without turning the whole thing back into a closed database.

As of February 4, 2026, the market is pricing DUSK like a mid cap infrastructure token, not a blue chip narrative. CoinMarketCap shows DUSK around $0.105 with about $23.5M in 24 hour trading volume, roughly $52.3M market cap, and about 497M circulating supply against a 1B max. If you think in Bangladeshi taka, CoinGecko lists DUSK around ৳13.57 with 24 hour traded volume roughly ৳2.23B. That price data matters, but it is not the main story. The main story is that Dusk is explicitly building for regulated finance, and it is trying to do it with primitives that institutions recognize: permissioning, auditability, and controlled disclosure, while still keeping a public blockchain settlement layer.

The clearest way to understand Dusk is to stop thinking about “privacy coin” and start thinking about “market plumbing.” Dusk’s own documentation frames it as a privacy blockchain for regulated finance, designed so institutions can meet real regulatory requirements onchain while users can keep balances and transfers confidential, with the option to reveal information to authorized parties when required. That “reveal when required” part is the key nuance. Pure privacy is easy to market and hard to deploy in finance. What finance wants is selective disclosure: you do not broadcast everything to the world, but you can prove compliance, ownership, eligibility, and settlement correctness to the people who have a legitimate need to know.

Under the hood, Dusk has been moving toward a modular stack rather than one monolithic chain. In June 2025, the team described an evolution to a multilayer architecture, with a settlement and data layer (DuskDS) underneath an EVM execution layer (DuskEVM), plus a privacy focused application layer planned as DuskVM. The practical reason is boring and that is exactly why it matters. Financial apps do not want bespoke tooling. They want familiar developer workflows, predictable integration paths for wallets and exchanges, and an execution environment that does not require custom everything. DuskEVM is meant to meet developers where they already are, while DuskDS remains the base that anchors staking, final settlement, and the privacy and compliance model.

The “real infrastructure” signal in 2026 is not a new slogan, it is counterparties. Dusk has been working with NPEX, described by Dusk as a fully regulated Dutch stock exchange for SMEs supervised by Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets. Dusk says NPEX has facilitated over €200M in financing for 100+ SMEs and connects 17,500+ active investors. That is the difference between “we could tokenize securities” and “we have a distribution partner that already lives inside the rules.” In the same announcement, Dusk and NPEX said they are adopting Chainlink standards including CCIP, DataLink, and Data Streams, aiming to combine compliant issuance, cross chain settlement, and verified market data onchain. For traders, that is a concrete path to non crypto flows: regulated assets plus official data plus interoperability that does not require trusting random bridges.

Now for the part that keeps this from being a fairy tale: operational risk is still real, and Dusk has been transparent about that. In mid January 2026, Dusk published a Bridge Services Incident Notice saying monitoring detected unusual activity involving a team managed wallet used in bridge operations, that bridge services were paused, related addresses were recycled, and they coordinated with Binance after part of the flow touched its platform. They stated that no user funds were impacted based on available information, and that DuskDS mainnet was not affected at the protocol level. They also said the bridge would remain closed until security review is concluded, and tied reopening to resuming the DuskEVM launch timeline. If you trade infrastructure tokens, this is the kind of incident that matters more than any marketing partnership, because it tests whether the team treats security as a process, not an event.

So what is the 2026 trader and investor lens here. Dusk is not trying to be everything for everyone. It is trying to be the chain where regulated assets can exist without forcing institutions to choose between compliance and confidentiality. The upside case is simple in mechanism: if regulated venues actually issue, trade, and settle on Dusk using selective disclosure, then usage becomes sticky, because regulated workflows do not churn easily once they integrate. The downside case is also simple: if integrations slip, if regulatory complexity slows deployments, or if bridge and operational hardening takes longer than expected, then you get a chain with good theory and thin activity.

If you want to treat Dusk seriously in 2026, do it the unsexy way. Watch for evidence that regulated assets are live, that market data pipelines are real, that cross chain movement is restored safely, and that developers can actually ship on the EVM layer without heroic effort. Price will follow whatever truth those metrics reveal.
@Dusk
$DUSK
#dusk

İlk dəfə bir Web3 tətbiqinin bir istifadəçini tamamilə itirdiyini gördüm, bu, qazın yüksək olduğu və ya zəncirin dayandığı üçün deyildi. Bu, sadə bir şəkil yüklənmədiyi üçün idi. NFT səhifəsi render edildi, cüzdan qoşuldu, əməliyyat tarixi yaxşı görünürdü, amma aktivin özü qırıq bir link idi. Bu, infrastrukturun əslində nə demək olduğunu öyrəndiyiniz andır: istifadəçilər məhsulu etibarlı şəkildə görünən hissələrə görə qiymətləndirirlər, hər dəfə, stress altında. Bu, Retensiya Problemi ən saf formadadır. İnsanlar sizin yol xəritəniz zəif olduğu üçün tərk etmir. Onlar, tətbiqinizin qeyri-sabit olduğu üçün tərk edirlər.

Əgər $VANRY baxırsınızsa və “nəyə görə bu hələ də əsasən yerə bağlıdır” düşünürsünüzsə, tək deyilsiniz. 3 Fevral 2026-cı il tarixinə görə, bu, təxminən $0.0064 ətrafında oturur, 24 saatlıq həcmi təxminən $3M–$4M və 2.16B dövriyyədədir, maksimum 2.4B-ə qarşı. Bu, ~$14M-lıq bazar dəyəri, izləyiciyə görə dəyişir.

Bura sizin vaxtınıza dəyər: bu, lentin ölü göründüyü, amma məhsul strukturu əslində qeyri-adi dərəcədə aydın olan bir quraşdırmadır. Çox sayda zəncir “oyun” və ya “metavers”ı sonradan əlavə etməyə çalışır və buna çəkiliş deyir. Vanar bunu dəyişdi. Zəncir, artıq mövcud olan iki istehlakçıya yönəlmiş çənlərin altında olan boru kəməridir: Virtua (metavers/koleksiyonlar üçün ön qapı) və VGN (Web2 oyunçularını Web3 istifadəçilərinə çevirməyə çalışan oyun şəbəkəsi, onları bütün cüzdan ritualını etmədən). Əgər bu marketinq kimi səslənirsə, əla, sözləri görməzlikdən gəlin və mexanizmə baxın.

The first time I tried to explain a “private” deal on a public chain to a non crypto friend, I watched their face change. They did not care about blocks or gas. They cared that anyone could trace who paid who, when, and how much. That is the real wall most finance workflows hit on a permissionless network.

A permissionless chain is great at one thing: neutral settlement. Anyone can validate, anyone can inspect rules, and the network keeps moving even if a single party disappears. The problem is that many real workflows are permissioned by nature. Not because people love gatekeeping, but because law, risk, and basic business reality demand it. A broker cannot match orders for sanctioned parties. An issuer cannot let restricted shares trade freely. A fund manager cannot broadcast every position to the entire internet.

So the question in this title is not a marketing one. It is a design question. How do you keep the base layer open, while making the application layer behave like a regulated system when it needs to?

The core idea is simple. “Permissioned workflow” does not have to mean “permissioned network.” A network can stay open for validators and still support applications that enforce access, roles, and transfer rules. The trick is where you put the permissioning. You put it in the contract logic and the proofs, not in a private validator set.

This is where Dusk’s approach is useful to understand. It is built around confidential smart contracts, meaning a contract can enforce rules without exposing all the underlying data to everyone watching the chain. Dusk’s own materials frame this as privacy that still fits regulatory needs, aimed at financial market use cases rather than pure retail activity.

In practice, permissioned workflows usually require three things.

First, eligibility. A user must prove they are allowed to do the action. That can mean KYC done, jurisdiction allowed, accreditation status, or simply being part of a known counterparty list.

Second, policy. Transfers often need constraints. Think lockups, whitelists, maximum holders, or limits on who can receive a token.

Third, auditability without oversharing. Regulators and internal risk teams need a trail. Counterparties often need confidentiality. Those are not opposites if the system supports selective disclosure.

Confidential execution plus verifiable proofs is how you bridge that gap. A user can prove “I meet the rule” without publishing the personal data that makes the proof true. Validators can still confirm the transaction followed the rules because they verify the proof, not the raw data. Dusk describes its stack as permissionless at the network level, while using zero knowledge and its transaction model to support private and compliant behavior at the application level.

Now bring this back to traders and investors, because narratives do not pay you, flows do.

As of February 3, 2026, DUSK trades around ten to eleven cents, with market cap around $52M to $53M and 24 hour volume around $18M to $19M depending on venue. Circulating supply is shown near 497M. That is liquid enough to trade, but still small enough that sentiment swings can matter.

But the market data belongs in the middle of the story, not the start, because price only becomes meaningful when you know what adoption would look like.

The current trend that makes this category worth watching is the steady growth of onchain dollars and tokenized real world assets. Coin aggregates put total stablecoin market cap a bit above $312B right now. Data from RWA.xyz shows a “distributed asset value” of about $24.17B and stablecoin value of about $293.45B on its dashboard. You can argue about definitions, but you cannot argue about direction. More value is trying to live on public rails, and public rails are brutally transparent by default.

That is why permissioned workflows on a permissionless chain matter. They are not a nice feature. They are what makes institutions stay after the first pilot.

This is also where The Retention Problem shows up. Most teams can get a demo partner. Retention is harder. If the workflow forces them to leak sensitive data, they will quietly move the real activity back to spreadsheets, private databases, and closed networks. The chain becomes a press release, not a system. Users do not leave because they hate crypto. They leave because the product makes them feel exposed.

Here is a real life style example from how I think about it as a trader who also watches product risk. Imagine a small issuer trying to run a compliant secondary market for a tokenized instrument. They need transfer rules, a way to block bad actors, and a way to show auditors what happened. On a fully transparent chain, even if the transfer rules work, the issuer may still reject it because positions and counterparties become public. If the system supports confidential logic with selective disclosure, the same issuer can keep the network benefits while meeting privacy expectations. That is a retention win, not a gimmick.

Dusk’s mainnet launch date matters here because retention only starts once the network is live and boring. Some market trackers and updates summarize mainnet going live on January 7, 2026, following prior upgrades in late 2025. If you are evaluating this as an investment theme, you should treat “live chain plus real users” as the first gate, not the finish line.

What should you watch next, without falling into hype?

Watch whether confidential workflows attract real issuers, brokers, or fintech builders who actually have compliance constraints. Watch whether activity grows in a way that looks sticky, not just a one week spike. Watch whether tools make it easier to build these flows without custom cryptography work every time. And watch whether the project communicates clearly about what is private, what is provable, and what can be disclosed when needed.

If you want to trade it, treat it like an adoption bet with clear invalidation points. If permissioned workflows do not keep users onchain, liquidity will not save it. If they do, you will see it first in steady usage, partner depth, and repeat activity, not in viral posts.

My call to action is simple. Pull up the live token metrics, then spend the same amount of time reading how the system enforces privacy and compliance in practice. Track usage signals weekly, not emotionally. If the retention problem gets solved, the chart will eventually reflect it.
@Dusk
$DUSK
#dusk

Mərkəzləşdirilməmiş saxlama ilə həqiqətən maraqlandığım ilk vaxt bir yüksəliş dövrü zamanı olmadı. Bu, lazım olan bir bağlantının sadəcə öldüyü adi bir gündə baş verdi. Nə blokçeyn, nə cibim, nə də ağıllı müqavilə. Sadəcə, bir tətbiqin səssizcə asılı olduğu “off chain” fayl. Tətbiq hələ də var idi, lakin gəldiyim şey yoxa çıxmışdı. Bu, mərkəzləşdirilməmiş saxlama şəbəkələrinin əslində nəyi satdığını öyrəndiyiniz andır: rahatlıq deyil, amma sağ qalma.

Mors qütbün içində oturur. Əksər kripto istifadəçiləri senzura müqaviməti və ya daha ucuz saxlama alırıq düşünürlər. Ticarətçilər bunu adətən bir hekayə ticarəti kimi çərçivəyə alırlar. İnvestorlar “infrastruktur” haqqında danışır. Lakin gündəlik reallıq daha sadədir. Tətbiqlər istifadəçiləri təcrübənin əsas hissələri uğursuz olduqda sızdırır. Şəkillər yüklənmir. Oyun aktivləri pozulur. Bir məlumat dəsti yoxa çıxır. Bir yaradıcının etibarı itirilir. Bu, saxlama problemdir: insanlar yüksək ödənişlər səbəbindən qəzəblənmirlər. Onlar məhsul etibarsız göründüyü üçün ayrılırlar, və etibarlılıq texniki olmadan əvvəl emosionaldır.

Mən Plasma-ya ilk baxanda, çünki qrafiklər hayqırmırdı, buna görə deyildi. Bu, məhsulun iddiasının kripto ilə bağlı qeyri-etik görünməsi ilə bağlı idi. Əksər şəbəkələr istifadəçilərdən hər hansı bir gerçək iş görmədən əvvəl bir ritual öyrənmələrini tələb edir: qaz tokeni tutmaq, ödəniş artımlarını başa düşmək, təsdiqləri gözləmək, bir şey uğursuz olduqda yenidən cəhd etmək. Plasma'nın mövqeyi fərqlidir. Bu, ödənişlərin xüsusi bir hadisə olmadığı fərziyyəsi ətrafında qurulmuşdur. Onlar arxa plan fəaliyyəti və sistem artıq bunu bildiyini düşünməlidir.

Sonra DUSK'a son zamanlarda baxırsınızsa və niyə bəzi "məxfilik valyutaları" yuxuluyursa, burada qiymət hərəkətinin daha mənalı olmasını təmin edən daha təmiz bir çərçivə var. Dusk əslində məxfilik satmır, onu insanların əslində səhv etdikdə məhkəməyə veriləcəyi bazarlar üçün boru kəməri kimi satır. Bu, fərqli bir alıcı, fərqli bir vaxt çizgisi və şəbəkəni dəyərləndirmək üçün fərqli bir yoldur.

İndiki zamanda, bazar DUSK-ı ölü pul və ya yuxulayan bir token olaraq qərar verə bilmir. 1 Fevral 2026 tarixində, təxminən $0.10 civarında, 24 saatlıq həcmi təxminən ~$20M+ və bazar dəyəri təxminən ~$50M civarındadır. Bu, "heç kim maraqlanmır" deyil. Bu, "ticarətçilərin oynayacağı qədər likvidlik, lakin ölçü üçün kamp etmək üçün kifayət qədər inam yoxdur." Və əgər son dövrlərdəki lentə baxsanız, niyə belə olduğunu görə bilərsiniz. Yanvarın sonlarında bəzi yerlərdə $0.20-dən yuxarı bir artım görüldü, sonra yenidən soyudu.