Neeeno

@Dusk The hard part about a mainnet launch is never the code that produces blocks. The hard part is the moment you ask real people to move real value across a line in time, when yesterday’s token is still sitting in familiar wallets and today’s token is supposed to feel like “the same thing,” just more real. Dusk treated that moment like an operational problem, not a celebration. The rollout in late 2024 and early 2025 wasn’t framed as a single switch flip, but as a controlled sequence where responsibility moved in stages from placeholder representations into the network’s own native accounting. That matters because onramping is where trust either becomes muscle memory or turns into panic.
On December 20, 2024, Dusk activated what it explicitly called the Mainnet Onramp contract on Ethereum and BSC, describing it as the mechanism to move ERC-20/BEP-20 DUSK into mainnet availability in time for genesis, either as stakes or deposits.That date is easy to skim past, but it’s a signal: the team anchored “genesis” to a real on-chain pipeline early, rather than waiting for a mythical launch day where everyone scrambles at once. In finance-adjacent systems, that choice is rarely about speed. It’s about giving people room to be cautious without being punished for it.
By December 29, the mainnet cluster was started in a dry-run mode, and Dusk described stakes being created in genesis through that onramp contract, with the system shifting from that point to deposits only. It’s an unusually honest acknowledgement of what genesis really is: not a mystical “birth,” but an initial state you carefully assemble, with rules about what gets admitted and when. For anyone who has lived through migrations, that kind of sequencing reduces the most human form of risk—confusion. Confusion is where mistakes happen. Confusion is where scammers thrive. Confusion is where people blame themselves for clicking the wrong thing.
Then came the date that quietly tells you Dusk was thinking about user experience under pressure: January 3, 2025. Dusk said deposits were on-ramped into genesis as Moonlight balances and were fully available, and also noted that funds could no longer be on-ramped with the onramp contract after that point.That “no longer” matters. A clean cutover is a kindness. It prevents a long tail of half-supported flows that create support tickets, disputes, and that lingering doubt that the system is still “in between.” In regulated contexts, “in between” is where policies fall apart, because nobody can say which rules apply.
January 7, 2025 is the other anchor: Dusk refreshed the cluster into operational mode and launched the bridge contract for subsequent ERC-20/BEP-20 migration.This is the point where the system stops being a carefully supervised rehearsal and becomes a living thing with consequences. You can feel the design philosophy in that timing. Genesis onramping first, operational mode next, then migration for everyone else. It’s a recognition that early participants—stakers and initial depositors—shape the first emotional impression of a network. If the first users experience chaos, the story is written before the later users even arrive
What makes the “official migration path” feel grounded is that it isn’t presented as a vague promise. The docs explain the migration as a lock-and-issue flow: ERC-20/BEP-20 DUSK is locked in a contract on Ethereum or BSC, an event is emitted, and native DUSK is issued to a Dusk mainnet wallet, with the whole process typically taking around 15 minutes.That 15-minute window reads like a small detail, but it’s actually a psychological design choice. Instant bridges feel magical until something goes wrong; a deliberate delay can feel safer because it matches how humans expect value transfers to behave when there’s a security boundary.
Even the annoying edge cases are treated like first-class citizens. The migration guide states there’s a minimum migration amount of 1 LUX (1,000,000,000 DUSK wei), and it warns that amounts not aligned to that unit are rounded down because native DUSK uses 9 decimals while the ERC-20/BEP-20 versions use 18. This is where “official” starts to mean something practical. A lot of migrations collapse not because the main path fails, but because a user has dust, or a weird fraction from an old trade, or a balance split across wallets, and suddenly their mental model breaks. Dusk’s documentation doesn’t pretend those frictions don’t exist. It names them, quantizes them, and puts a predictable rule on them
Underneath that user-facing flow is a quieter piece of discipline: auditing. In October 2024, before the rollout timeline began, Dusk published that Zellic audited the migration contract and reported no issues, emphasizing the migrate function was extensively analyzed and tested across branches.People sometimes treat audits like marketing badges, but in migrations the audit isn’t about impressing outsiders. It’s about protecting insiders from the one catastrophic failure mode: a contract that locks tokens and cannot, for any reason, reliably trigger the corresponding issuance. That is the nightmare scenario where trust becomes trauma, and communities don’t “move on”—they fracture.
Token economics also becomes more than a whitepaper paragraph during a migration, because supply accounting is the thing people watch when they’re nervous. Dusk’s tokenomics documentation states an initial supply of 500,000,000 DUSK represented across ERC-20 and BEP-20, and a total emitted supply of another 500,000,000 over 36 years, for a maximum supply of 1,000,000,000 DUSK.It also describes emission halving every four years across nine four-year periods, with early emissions sized to bootstrap participation. In the migration context, those numbers stop being abstract. They’re the difference between “I’m moving into the real network” and “I’m stepping into a fog where nobody can explain the rules.” Clarity about supply, units, and issuance is part of what makes a native token feel native—because the ledger stops being a rumor and starts being an institution.
And there’s a subtle incentive story hidden in the mechanics. The migration contract flow described in Dusk’s own repository is event-driven: users call migrate, tokens are locked, an event is emitted, and an external service listens and reissues on the Dusk network. That design asks you to trust not only code, but a monitored operational process that must stay honest under load. It’s not glamorous work. It’s the work of reconciliation, monitoring, and making sure the same transaction hash becomes a reference point on the other side. The docs even mention that once migration completes, the original Ethereum/BSC transaction hash is included in the memo field of the Dusk transaction.That’s not a “feature.” That’s accountability. It gives users a breadcrumb trail strong enough to survive arguments, support tickets, and late-night doubt.
If you zoom out, the “genesis onramp” and the “official migration path” are really about one theme: reducing the number of moments where a human can do the wrong thing while trying to do the right thing. Dusk’s timeline separated stakes and deposits, cut off the onramp when it was time to cut it off, and then moved ongoing migration into a defined path. The docs quantified minimums and rounding behavior so users aren’t surprised by the decimals shift. And the team established confidence in the migration contract by publishing an audit ahead of time, not after the fact.These are not the choices of a project chasing attention. They’re the choices of a system trying to be boring in the way that real finance quietly demands.
In the end, native DUSK isn’t “enabled” by a slogan. It’s enabled by a sequence of commitments that are easy to underestimate: a concrete rollout schedule (December 20 to January 7), explicit cutovers (December 29, January 3), a migration process that admits its timing and its rounding limits (15 minutes, 1 LUX minimum, 9 vs 18 decimals), and a supply story that doesn’t wiggle (500M initial, 500M emitted over 36 years, 1B max, four-year emission reductions). None of that is flashy. It’s quiet responsibility—engineering and operations designed for the days when markets are messy, when users are tired, when someone is scared they made a mistake, and when reliability matters more than attention.
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK

@Vanarchain When Vanar talks about Axon and Flows, it isn’t really talking about “automation” in the way most people mean it. It’s talking about the moment a chain stops being a place you send transactions and becomes a place you send intent. That difference sounds subtle until you’ve lived through the messy parts of on-chain life: the frantic misclick, the delayed confirmation, the governance argument that spills into panic, the late-night realization that a “simple” workflow was actually five assumptions stacked on top of each other. Vanar’s tease lands because it points directly at that emotional seam, where users don’t just want speed, they want relief.
The quiet promise behind Axon and Flows is not that things will happen faster. It’s that things will happen with fewer surprises. Vanar’s own framing has been consistent: a five-layer stack where data becomes meaningful before it becomes actionable, and where automation is a layer that sits above memory and reasoning rather than pretending those problems don’t exist. You can see how Vanar positions those layers publicly, with Axon described as “intelligent automations” and Flows as “industry applications,” with both still marked as “coming soon.” That “coming soon” matters, because it tells you the chain is trying to earn the right to automate, not rushing to ship a button that moves money.
The real issue with on-chain workflows has never been the lack of tools. It’s the lack of shared reality. A workflow is only as good as the facts it believes, and blockchains are brutal about facts: they’re exact, but not always true in the way humans need. A payment can be final and still be wrong. A contract can execute flawlessly and still violate an agreement made off-chain. A user can follow every rule and still lose because the environment changed in the minutes between intent and execution. If Axon and Flows are going to matter on Vanar, they have to live inside that contradiction and not pretend it goes away.
This is why Vanar’s recent public narrative keeps circling back to “agents” and “agentic workflows” rather than plain automation. Agents are not interesting because they can do things. They’re interesting because they can hesitate, re-check, and adjust. They can be designed to treat uncertainty as a first-class input. And that’s where Vanar’s direction becomes emotionally relevant. People don’t fear blockchains because they’re complex. People fear them because they’re unforgiving. An agentic workflow, if it’s done honestly, is an attempt to add a kind of procedural compassion to a system that otherwise only knows how to be correct.
You can see Vanar pushing this beyond theory in how it connects its stack to payments and operational finance. In late December 2025, Vanar and Worldpay publicly framed their collaboration around “agentic payments” at Abu Dhabi Finance Week, which ran December 8–11, 2025.That choice of venue and language is a tell. It signals Vanar wants workflows that survive real constraints: disputes, compliance checks, treasury controls, and the awkward truth that finance is mostly exception-handling. The chain can settle, but settlement is not the whole job. The job is making sure settlement happens for the right reasons, with the right evidence, and with a path to explain what happened when something goes wrong.
That “when something goes wrong” is the part that separates a demo from infrastructure. In calm markets, almost any workflow looks smart. Under stress, you learn what it actually believes. Does it double-send? Does it stall? Does it leak sensitive context? Does it route around risk controls because a user is yelling at it to “just do it”? Vanar’s bet, implied by Axon and Flows, is that workflow design should be shaped by those ugly edge cases, not by screenshots. That’s also why the language of orchestration matters more than the language of speed. Orchestration is about sequencing, fallback paths, and accountability—things users only notice after they’ve been hurt.
Token design becomes part of this story the moment automation becomes real. A chain can tolerate speculative usage because the blast radius is social. Automated usage changes the blast radius into operational risk. Vanar has been emphasizing VANRY as the token that sits underneath participation and activity, and recent community-facing updates keep repeating one core constraint: a capped supply of 2.4 billion VANRY. You can treat that as marketing if you want, but a cap is also a governance choice. It’s a way of telling builders and operators that the system wants predictability, that “keeping the lights on” won’t be funded by endless dilution. That kind of predictability is not exciting, but it’s the sort of boring commitment serious users quietly demand.
The numbers on VANRY right now look like the numbers of a network still early in its lifecycle, which is exactly the point. In early February 2026, third-party market trackers show VANRY trading around the $0.006 range, with circulating supply around 2.256 billion and a max supply of 2.4 billion.Those figures don’t prove anything about the future, but they do anchor the present: this is not a chain being priced as a finished product. It’s being priced as an unfinished responsibility. And unfinished responsibility changes how you read “teases.” You stop asking whether Axon and Flows sound impressive and start asking what kind of demand they’re meant to create, and whether that demand will be healthy.
One of the more concrete ideas circulating in recent Vanar roadmap commentary is that core tools and upcoming automation layers may move toward a subscription-style model paid in VANRY, positioned as a shift from building to activation through recurring on-chain activity.Whether or not that ends up being the final model, it reveals an important instinct: Vanar seems to want usage that looks like operations, not hype. Subscriptions are the opposite of a one-time speculative rush. They create a rhythm. They also create expectations. If you pay repeatedly, you demand reliability repeatedly. And reliability is exactly the trait agentic workflows must earn, because their failures feel personal. When automation fails, it doesn’t just cost money. It costs trust in your own judgment.
This is also where governance stops being abstract. If Vanar is serious about pushing logic and workflows deeper into the chain’s lived experience, governance becomes the place where people argue about what “safe” means. Recent roadmap discussion has pointed toward an upgraded governance approach that would let holders influence parameters and incentives more directly.That kind of plan is often described as empowerment, but inside an ecosystem it feels like something else: shared liability. If a community votes for looser rules and someone gets hurt, the blame doesn’t land on a faceless system anymore. It lands on people. That can be a painful maturation, but it’s also how infrastructure becomes real—when decisions carry consequences that can’t be brushed off as “just code.”
What makes the Axon and Flows tease feel meaningful, in this context, is that Vanar is not only telling a story about agents doing tasks. It’s telling a story about agents living inside constraints. Worldpay’s own writing about blockchain validator nodes explicitly calls out Vanar in the context of AI-native payment systems and on-chain agents for merchant settlement experiments, which is a very specific kind of ambition: not “web3 stuff,” but payment plumbing with accountability. The minute you say “merchant settlement,” you inherit the real world: chargebacks, reconciliations, policies, human error, and regulators who don’t care how elegant your architecture is.
So if you’re trying to understand what Axon and Flows could represent on Vanar, the right mental model is not “more features.” It’s “more responsibility per transaction.” An agentic workflow isn’t impressive because it can act. It’s impressive if it can refuse to act, explain why, and leave behind enough evidence that a human can audit the decision without guessing. It’s impressive if it can survive conflicting inputs without turning that conflict into random outcomes. It’s impressive if it makes the honest path cheaper than the dishonest one, not through moral claims, but through incentives and friction.
And that returns us to VANRY, because incentives are ultimately paid in something. If Vanar succeeds at making Axon and Flows a real layer of on-chain operational life, VANRY’s role becomes less about “utility” as a word and more about settlement of responsibility. Fees and staking are not just mechanics; they’re the cost of having the network take your intent seriously. A capped supply and a large circulating base are not guarantees of fairness, but they do shape the emotional tone of participation: people can argue about outcomes without constantly fearing that the rules will be rewritten through hidden inflation.
There’s a final, quieter point here that only becomes visible when you stop reading announcements and start reading systems. Vanar’s insistence on building a stack where data becomes interpretable before it becomes executable suggests it is trying to reduce the gap between what humans mean and what chains do.That gap is where most pain lives. It’s where users feel tricked by complexity, where builders feel trapped by edge cases, and where institutions feel the cold dread of irreversibility. Axon and Flows, if they arrive as more than names, are a test of whether Vanar can narrow that gap without pretending it can eliminate it.
In the end, the most mature version of this story is not a world where agents do everything for you. It’s a world where you can delegate without disappearing. Where you can automate without surrendering accountability. Where workflows behave like careful colleagues rather than reckless interns. Vanar’s recent updates and public signals—its continued framing of Axon and Flows as the next layer, its payments narrative with Worldpay, its emphasis on a capped VANRY supply, and its talk of recurring, usage-tied demand—are all pointing toward the same quiet ambition: infrastructure that doesn’t ask for attention, only for trust.
Reliability will never trend the way novelty does. It won’t make people cheer. It will simply make fewer people panic. That is what invisible infrastructure is supposed to do. If Vanar brings Axon and Flows into the world with that kind of restraint—designed for disputes, for uncertainty, for the moments when sources disagree and money is on the line—then the real achievement won’t be that the chain “feels intelligent.” It will be that the people using it feel safer, not because nothing can go wrong, but because the system behaves as if it expects things to go wrong, and treats that expectation as a form of quiet responsibility.

@Vanarchain #Vanar $VANRY

@Plasma The first thing people miss about compliance is that it isn’t a checkbox, it’s a mood. It’s the difference between a treasury team sleeping at night or waking up to a Slack message that begins with “we need to talk.” Plasma is being built in that emotional territory, where privacy isn’t a rebellious statement and transparency isn’t a virtue signal. It’s just the day-to-day reality of moving dollars through systems that have auditors, counterparties, sanctions lists, and human careers attached to them. When Plasma talks about selective disclosure, it’s admitting something most crypto products avoid saying out loud: the real world doesn’t want everything public, and it also doesn’t accept “trust me” as an answer.
If you’ve spent any time around institutional workflows, you learn that “privacy” is rarely about hiding wrongdoing. It’s about not advertising payroll data, not exposing supplier relationships, not showing competitors your cash cadence, and not turning every payment into a permanent, searchable map of who depends on whom. On most public networks, every transfer leaks a story: amounts, timing, counterparties, even patterns that are easy to interpret when markets get tense. Plasma’s docs say its privacy feature is simple and optional, and they’re clear that Plasma isn’t trying to be a full privacy-focused chain. That framing matters, because institutions don’t adopt absolutes. They adopt controls.
The control Plasma is reaching for is subtle: the ability to keep ordinary transfers ordinary, while giving users the option to shield sensitive details and then reveal only what’s necessary later, to the right party, for the right reason. In the Plasma docs, selective disclosures are described as optional, scoped, and controlled by the user, with verifiable proofs used when auditability or compliance requires it. That single sentence contains the practical compromise institutions have been begging for: you don’t have to make your entire financial life public to prove one payment was legitimate. You can produce a precise window into activity without handing over the whole house key.
Where this becomes real is in the messy moments, not the demos. A vendor disputes an invoice. A regulator asks why a payment crossed a border. A compliance officer needs to reconcile on-chain movement with off-chain documentation that is, inevitably, imperfect. This is where selective disclosure stops being a concept and turns into operational safety.
Plasma’s approach suggests a world where, when someone says “prove it,” an institution doesn’t have to choose between leaking private details and failing a compliance check. You can picture a calmer crisis call: less panic, less over-sharing, fewer things you can’t take back, because the system can show only what’s needed instead of everything. What feels most real in how Plasma talks is this: privacy is a choice you make on purpose, not a place you end up by accident.
The docs describe private-to-public movement without wrappers or new tokens, and they emphasize composability rather than isolation—again, not as a marketing claim, but as an admission that money doesn’t live in one box. Institutions will not tolerate funds getting trapped in a privacy corner they can’t unwind from when a policy changes or an investigation starts. Building confidentiality as an opt-in flow with an exit is a way of designing for regret, and regret is a constant in financial operations.
The other side of compliance is incentives, because policies are only as strong as the economic gravity beneath them. Plasma’s token, XPL, is positioned as the security anchor: an initial supply of 10,000,000,000 XPL at mainnet beta launch, with allocations that explicitly spell out who holds what and when those holdings become liquid. Ten percent—1,000,000,000 XPL—was allocated to the public sale, while 40% is reserved for ecosystem and growth, and 25% each to team and investors, with multi-year vesting mechanics. Those numbers aren’t just tokenomics trivia; they tell institutions whether the network’s incentives are likely to remain stable when the first real stress hits and people start reaching for liquidity.
Even the compliance-specific detail in the public sale unlocks is revealing. Plasma’s docs state that non-US public sale purchases are fully unlocked at mainnet beta launch, while US purchasers face a 12-month lockup, unlocking on July 28, 2026. You can read that as a constraint, but I read it as a signal: Plasma is shaping distribution around jurisdictional reality instead of pretending those lines don’t exist. The moment a network accepts that different participants live under different rulebooks, it becomes easier for compliance teams to imagine integrating it without constantly apologizing for it.
There’s also the quiet question of who pays to keep honesty expensive. Plasma outlines validator rewards beginning at 5% annual inflation, decreasing by 0.5% per year until reaching a 3% baseline, with the important caveat that inflation only activates once external validators and delegation go live. It also describes a fee-burning model designed to balance emissions over time. I’m not repeating these points to sound technical. I’m repeating them because compliance is downstream of security, and security is downstream of incentives. When a network can clearly explain how it funds validation without relying on constant excitement, it starts to resemble infrastructure instead of a mood swing.
The “recent updates” story around Plasma has been less about grand announcements and more about distribution and usage pathways that look institution-shaped. In late September 2025, Plasma said mainnet beta would go live September 25, 2025, and framed launch readiness in terms of stablecoin liquidity and deployment through partners, pointing to “$2B in stablecoins” active from day one and a deposit campaign that committed “more than $1B” in just over 30 minutes, followed by “$373M in commitments” for the public sale. Those are adoption-flavored data points: they’re about capital choosing to sit inside the system, which is a more serious signal than social engagement.
And then, in January 2026, you can see the institutional edge sharpen in practical integration. Confirmo—an enterprise payments platform—announced on January 22, 2026 that it processes $80M+ in monthly volume for 800+ enterprise clients and is partnering with Plasma to add a USD₮ payment rail with zero gas fees, while noting that services may be jurisdiction-limited. That last line is unglamorous, but it’s the kind of sentence compliance teams look for. It means someone is thinking about boundaries, not just throughput.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: selective disclosure only matters if it remains believable under pressure. In bull markets, everyone is fine with “privacy” as a vibe. In a crisis, the questions become sharp and unforgiving: who can see what, who can prove what, and how quickly can you answer without exposing everything else? Plasma’s approach—confidentiality as an opt-in module, selective disclosures as verifiable and scoped, and a system designed to remain auditable—reads like it was written by people who have sat through those tense meetings. It’s an attempt to make the truthful path the least painful path, because that’s what honest behavior often needs: not moral lectures, but lower operational cost.
XPL sits inside that same responsibility story. The supply numbers, unlock schedules, and reward mechanics are not just for traders. They’re for the people who have to explain why a network will still be there after the headlines move on, why validator participation won’t evaporate, why sudden dilution won’t turn governance into a scramble, and why the system won’t demand social trust when it should be delivering mechanical trust. Plasma is trying to make its economics legible—10B initial supply, defined allocations, multi-year unlocks, and a stated emissions curve—because legibility is a form of compliance too. It reduces fear, not by promising perfection, but by reducing surprises.
In the end, the most important thing Plasma is attempting with selective disclosure is not a new kind of secrecy. It’s a new kind of restraint. The restraint to hide what should remain private, to reveal what must be proven, and to do both without turning every transaction into either a public spectacle or a black box. That’s a quiet responsibility, and it rarely earns attention the way louder narratives do.In finance, hype is easy to get.In financial infrastructure, being noticed is cheap. Being dependable is rare. What lasts is what holds up when markets shake, when motives get messy, and when a counterparty wants verification—calm, precise, and private where it should be.
@Plasma #plasma #Plasma $XPL

@Walrus 🦭/acc When people hear “prediction market,” they often imagine a clean contest between two outcomes, a tidy probability curve, and a final answer that snaps into place. Living inside Myriad feels different. The real work is not the trading interface. The real work is the messy middle: the screenshots, the clips, the posts that get deleted, the article that gets quietly edited after the fact, the “official source” that contradicts another official source by a single sentence. In a market that asks humans to put money behind a belief, the first thing that breaks under stress is not price discovery—it’s shared reality. That is why the Myriad partnership with Walrus matters, and why it shows up as infrastructure rather than a marketing event.
Myriad has always carried an unusual burden because it is wired directly into live media. It is not asking users to leave their context, calm down, and make a rational forecast in isolation. It asks them to act while the story is unfolding, while the timeline is arguing, while the latest update is still hot enough to burn your fingers. Walrus framed the integration as replacing a prior mix of centralized and IPFS-style storage with something verifiable and publicly auditable, tuned for provenance rather than convenience. That shift is not aesthetic. It changes what it feels like to participate when you are uncertain, because your fear is often not “am I wrong,” but “will the record move under me.”
The subtle promise in this partnership is not that outcomes become more correct. It’s that disagreements become more legible. Myriad’s own language around the integration points at bringing a market’s surrounding media and the final outcome “onchain” in a way that can be checked later, rather than trusted in the moment. When you have been in these markets long enough, you start to notice how often people are not fighting about the answer—they are fighting about what was known when the answer was tradable. Walrus is basically saying: pin the evidence trail so the argument can’t be quietly re-written after the crowd has already paid.
This is where storage stops being “just storage.” Images and media aren’t decoration in a prediction market. They are often the primary evidence people use to justify a trade, especially when they don’t trust each other’s summaries. If that evidence is off-chain, mutable, or hosted in a place that can disappear, the market inherits a background anxiety: you can be right and still feel cheated. By moving the media layer into a system designed around verifiable availability, Myriad is choosing a kind of emotional safety. Not the soft kind that tells users everything will be fine, but the hard kind that leaves a trace when something goes wrong.
It also changes incentives in a quiet way. In calm markets, people tolerate a lot of ambiguity because nothing feels urgent. Under pressure—breaking news, fast reversals, controversial outcomes—bad incentives show up immediately. People spam low-quality “proof.” They cherry-pick. They link to sources that will be edited later. A durable, checkable media record doesn’t make manipulation impossible, but it makes manipulation more expensive, because you can’t rely on later deletion to erase the footprint. Walrus’ own framing leans into that idea: competitive behavior is shaped not only by rules, but by the cost of adversarial behavior, and the system is designed to minimize it.
The economics matter here because Walrus is not pretending that good behavior happens out of kindness. WAL is explicitly positioned as the payment and security backbone for storage, with mechanisms meant to stabilize costs in fiat terms and distribute payments over time to the parties keeping data available. There’s an honesty in that design: data persistence is not a vibe, it’s an ongoing service that has to be paid for long after the original hype cycle ends. When Myriad anchors its evidence trail to Walrus, it is choosing to pay for memory in a way that doesn’t depend on any one company continuing to care.
WAL’s own distribution story reinforces why this isn’t a cosmetic integration. Walrus states a 5,000,000,000 max supply, with an initial circulating supply of 1,250,000,000, and a distribution where 43% is set aside as a community reserve, alongside specific allocations for a user drop and subsidies. It also describes deflationary pressure via burning mechanisms tied to network behavior and, longer term, penalties for poor performance. If you live in these systems, you recognize what that’s trying to do: make long-term reliability financially rational, and make short-term, destabilizing behavior costly enough that it stops being a default strategy.
Myriad, for its part, is also trying to normalize prediction markets as something you can do without turning your day into a trading desk. Decrypt’s own “getting started” guide describes Myriad as blending prediction markets into written and video content, including Decrypt and Rug Radio, and emphasizes stablecoin-based participation. Trust Wallet’s guide goes further and portrays Myriad as an in-wallet experience, describing stablecoin trading and high user activity metrics, including a March 2025 launch date and cumulative usage numbers as of its publication. Even if you treat any single metric with caution, the direction is clear: Myriad is pushing markets closer to where attention already lives, which makes the integrity of the underlying record more important, not less.
This is also why Walrus’ recent updates feel relevant to Myriad’s choice.
Walrus isn’t aiming to be a small, niche tool. It keeps saying it’s built to handle big scale and stay dependable. In January 2026, it published a post about how growth can quietly concentrate power, and why staying decentralized takes deliberate design—using checkable performance and consequences for nodes that don’t do the job.
Around the same time, Walrus highlighted a 250TB migration by Team Liquid as a milestone dataset entrusted to the network. Those are not prediction-market stories, but they matter for prediction markets, because a market is only as trustworthy as its ability to keep its receipts when the stakes are high and the audience is hostile.
The most interesting line in Walrus’ own reflection on 2025 is that it places Myriad inside a broader pattern: a world where weekly prediction volume can be enormous, and where Myriad had already processed millions in transactions “since launch,” with the data stored verifiably on Walrus. Whether you focus on that figure or the larger numbers cited elsewhere later, the partnership’s intent stays the same: make the market’s memory durable enough that users can argue honestly about what happened without also having to argue about what existed. That is the difference between a market that feels like a game and a market that feels like a civic tool.
In the end, this Myriad–Walrus partnership is not really about making prediction markets louder. It’s about making them harder to gaslight. When you anchor the media trail and outcome context to a data layer that is designed to be verifiable, you are accepting a kind of quiet responsibility: the responsibility to preserve the uncomfortable evidence, not just the convenient narrative. The best infrastructure rarely gets applause because, when it works, nothing dramatic happens. People simply feel less fear when they place a trade, less suspicion when a market resolves, and less exhaustion when a dispute erupts—because the system can point to what it saw, when it saw it, and who was paid to keep that record intact. That is invisible work. In the long run, being dependable matters more than getting noticed. Attention comes and goes, but reliability stays.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL

@Dusk Builder growth on Dusk never really looks like the classic “ecosystem explosion.” It looks quieter than that, and more deliberate, which is exactly why it matters. If you’ve spent time around regulated finance, you learn that the most important systems rarely arrive with fireworks.They bring forms, checks, and long quiet stretches where nothing big happens—by design. That’s the kind of environment Dusk has been aiming for since mainnet went live and the first immutable block was made on January 7, 2025.The interesting question isn’t whether Dusk can attract developers. The interesting question is what kind of developers it attracts when the chain’s identity is tied to consequences. In most ecosystems, a hackathon is a weekend of optimism and demos. On Dusk, the energy is different. A builder isn’t just trying to ship something that “works.” They’re trying to ship something that won’t embarrass a user in a moment of stress, won’t leak sensitive information through a lazy assumption, and won’t collapse into excuses the first time reality shows up messy and contradictory. That changes what people build, and it changes how they build it.
This is why grants matter more here than people casually admit. Dusk’s own grants documentation frames the program around funding work that strengthens Dusk as financial market infrastructure, explicitly pointing toward real-world asset workflows like clearance and settlement rather than “apps for apps’ sake.” That framing acts like a filter. It tells builders, in plain terms, that the chain is not rewarding attention. It is rewarding responsibility—responsibility that usually feels invisible until the day something goes wrong.
A grant, in practice, is not only money. It is permission to slow down. It’s time you can spend writing the boring parts: monitoring, failure handling, better defaults, clearer transaction flows, and user experiences that don’t punish people for not being protocol experts. The irony is that these are the parts users feel most intensely. Nobody remembers a flashy interface when markets are calm. People remember the moment they tried to do something important—move value, prove eligibility, settle a trade—and the system either carried them calmly or made them feel small and unsafe. Dusk’s grant posture nudges builders toward the calm path, and that’s rare.
There’s also a deeper economic truth underneath the builder story: Dusk is structured to keep builders and network participants honest over long time horizons, not just during launch cycles.The documentation explains it like this: 500 million DUSK exist at launch, and another 500 million can be minted gradually over 36 years for staking rewards, capped at 1 billion total. That “slow drip” supply changes the emotional tone of the network.It means the network is explicitly budgeting for security and participation across decades, not months. And when builders know the chain is thinking in decades, it becomes harder to justify building something disposable.
That token design also intersects with builder growth in a practical way: grants and hackathons are not happening on a chain with a “maybe” future; they’re happening on a chain with a clear token incentive loop and a live network that expects validators and stakers to keep showing up. The documentation also notes that DUSK has existed as ERC-20/BEP-20 representations and can be migrated to native DUSK now that mainnet is live.That kind of migration reality is where builder trust is either earned or lost. Because the moment you ask users to bridge value from one representation to another, you are asking them to trust your operational discipline, not just your code
And here is where “builder growth” becomes more than a developer relations slogan. Dusk has already had to communicate like an infrastructure operator under scrutiny. In mid-January 2026, the team shared an incident update saying they paused bridge services as a safety step while they strengthened things. They also said the mainnet wasn’t affected and kept running normally. Being that open does two things: it also pushes away builders who only want a perfect, trouble-free story.And it attracts builders who understand that the real job is building systems that can admit imperfect moments without becoming fragile.
If you’re a builder deciding whether to commit your time, those details matter more than marketing. Because you are not really betting on throughput claims. You are betting on operational culture. You’re betting that when something feels off at 3 a.m., the chain won’t pretend everything is fine until it’s too late. You’re betting that the people running the infrastructure will choose boring safety over public confidence tricks. The strongest ecosystems aren’t the ones that never face incidents. They’re the ones that face them early, clearly, and with the kind of humility that leaves room for learning.
Then there’s the other side of the builder growth story: DuskEVM is a bridge not just for assets, but for developer identity. Dusk’s documentation describes DuskEVM as an EVM-equivalent execution environment in a modular stack, and notes it uses the Optimism OP Stack architecture while settling directly using Dusk’s base layer instead of Ethereum. Even if you never touch the underlying architectural details, the human consequence is simple: builders don’t have to become different people to build here. They can keep their habits, their tools, their mental models—and still land on a system that is intentionally shaped around regulated-grade constraints.
But the more honest part is that this isn’t magic, and Dusk’s own documentation even acknowledges a temporary limitation: DuskEVM inherits a seven-day finalization period from the OP Stack design today, with the stated direction aiming toward one-block finality in future upgrades.This kind of candor matters. It’s exactly the kind of detail that changes what builders choose to build first. Some applications can tolerate delayed finalization. Others can’t. A mature ecosystem is one where builders understand those boundaries without being shamed for asking about them, and where grants and hackathons steer work toward the things that are safe to build now while the underlying system evolves.
Hackathons, in that context, aren’t only about prizes. They’re about stress testing human assumptions. In a weekend sprint, teams don’t just reveal whether their idea is good—they reveal where they cut corners when tired, where they misunderstand risk, where they build a happy path and forget the failure path. Dusk has spoken historically about hackathons and related programs as part of the broader activity plan around its network rollout phases, positioning them alongside other mechanisms that bring builders in and harden the ecosystem over time.The value of a hackathon in a regulated-leaning environment is not the demo. It’s the discovery of hidden fragility while the cost of discovery is still low.
The best builder growth doesn’t come from recruiting as many teams as possible. It comes from creating an environment where teams feel safe enough to be honest about what they don’t know yet. Grants help with that because they’re a statement: “We expect this to take time, and we’re not pretending otherwise.” The Dusk Development Fund announcement made that statement concrete with a specific commitment—15 million DUSK allocated to attract and support teams and broaden the ecosystem. Numbers like that matter because they force accountability. A fund is a promise that can be checked later, and builders notice when promises are measurable.
It also changes how disagreement plays out. In every ecosystem, builders argue about priorities: should we chase user growth, or build deeper infrastructure; should we optimize for convenience, or for correctness; should we ship now, or wait. On Dusk, those arguments are shaped by a different baseline assumption: the chain is trying to be usable in environments where disputes are normal—where counterparties disagree, where auditors ask uncomfortable questions, where compliance teams require evidence, where “trust me” is not an acceptable interface. This pushes builders toward designs where the system itself carries some of the burden of proof, instead of dumping that burden onto users and hoping they won’t notice.
And finally, there’s the quiet but crucial role of the token in builder psychology. A maximum supply structure, a multi-decade emissions schedule, and a live network with ongoing staking incentives are not just “tokenomics.” They are signals about what kind of attention the ecosystem expects. Dusk’s token design, as documented, reads like a commitment to continuity: an initial 500 million base, another 500 million released over 36 years, and a path from earlier representations into the native asset on mainnet. For builders, that translates into something plain and human: the chain is trying to stay, not spike.
If you want a one-sentence summary of Dusk builder growth, it’s this: the ecosystem is growing by rewarding the kind of work that holds up under pressure. Grants and hackathons are simply the instruments, not the point. The point is the culture they create—one where builders are paid to think about failure before users are forced to experience it, one where operational incidents are treated as part of the job rather than a scandal, and one where the token’s long time horizon quietly encourages everyone to act like they’ll still be here when today’s excitement is gone.
In the end, the most responsible infrastructure is the kind you barely notice. Not because it’s invisible in a marketing sense, but because it behaves like a steady floor beneath people’s lives. That is what Dusk is asking builders to contribute to: quiet systems that keep working when emotions run hot, when information is incomplete, when somebody makes a mistake, when incentives pull people toward shortcuts. Getting attention is simple, and losing it is just as quick. Reliability is built over time, not praised much, and hard to fake. But when nobody’s watching and the transfer still has to clear, reliability is what carries you through.
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK