In Proof-of-Stake, trust never exists by itself. It is not based on the reputation, intentions, or moral qualities of the participants. In PoS, trust is always measured in money. That is why the slashing mechanism is not an auxiliary tool, but the foundation of the security of any network that claims serious financial usage.
In Dusk, this foundation is built as straight as possible: honest behavior should be the only economically rational strategy. Many blockchains formally have slashing, but in practice, they make it decorative. Penalties are small, the conditions for application are vague, and punishments often depend on social consensus or manual decisions. This approach creates an illusion of security but does not change participant behavior. In Dusk, which is developed by @Dusk, slashing is integrated into the very economic logic of the protocol and leaves no room for ambiguities. Soft slashing in Dusk works as a mechanism of long-term pressure. An unstable node, missed votes, or availability issues do not lead to instant capital destruction but gradually reduce the economic impact of the validator. Voting power decreases, future rewards in $DUSK shrink, and participation in consensus loses meaning if the operator is not willing to maintain an appropriate level of infrastructure. This is not a punishment for a mistake, but a signal: either you work stably, or you exit the game. Hard slashing starts where mistakes end and malicious behavior begins. Double signing, attempts to attack consensus, or other critical violations lead to automatic burning of part of the staked $DUSK . Importantly, this is not an administrative decision and not a result of voting. The punishment is determined by the protocol and is executed without human involvement. This approach excludes the politicization of security and makes the rules the same for everyone. A separate role in this model is played by the combination of slashing with random role selection in consensus. Even a large stake does not guarantee permanent control over blocks. Randomization reduces predictability, and slashing makes any attempt at manipulation economically senseless. Potential losses are guaranteed to exceed possible gains, and this radically changes the behavior logic of network participants #Dusk. For node operators, this creates a clear and honest contract. Participation in Dusk is not passive income and not 'safe staking.' It is responsibility. The client architecture is designed so that with correct operation, the risk of hard slashing is minimal, but if the rules are consciously violated, the system leaves no room for excuses. Personally, I believe that this approach distinguishes a mature financial protocol from an experimental network. Dusk does not hide risks and does not try to soften rules for the sake of attractiveness. It directly links the security of the network to the money of its participants. It is tough, but fair. And it is this model, implemented by @dusk_foundation, that has a chance to work in the long term when what is at stake is not abstract tokens, but real financial flows in the ecosystem.
