Moon-一颗糖
Verified Creator
币安广场创作者 / alpha在逃人员 / 持币归零钻石💎手 / X：@yiketang888
394 Following
32.0K+ Followers
18.3K+ Liked
1.7K+ Shared
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
Welcome to join Moon's🌙 chat room, where large red envelopes are distributed from time to time.
Join through the homepage entrance to get your reward.
👇
Chat room link
Welcome to join Moon's🌙 chat room, where large red envelopes🧧 are distributed from time to time.
Join through the homepage entrance to get your reward. Or scan the code to enter
#美联储利率决议 #Sweden online VIRBNB
Join through the homepage entrance to get your reward.
👇
Chat room link
Welcome to join Moon's🌙 chat room, where large red envelopes🧧 are distributed from time to time.
Join through the homepage entrance to get your reward. Or scan the code to enter
#美联储利率决议 #Sweden online VIRBNB
PINNED
2026 Compliance Infrastructure: How DUSK Ends the Privacy Paradox with 'Auditable Zero-Knowledge Proofs'?
“Brothers, let me tell you about Moon's recent observations: while the crypto world is still heavily promoting privacy as a selling point, traditional finance has already listed it as the 'number one object to explain.'
Privacy is no longer a bonus point, but a risk factor.
In Binance Square, privacy is often still regarded as a 'technical advantage' or 'narrative label,' but in more institutional contexts, it increasingly resembles something that must be explained, audited, and integrated into processes.
This is also why I use the term 'privacy chain' less and less when looking at DUSK—this label tends to obscure the real problems it aims to solve.
Privacy is no longer a bonus point, but a risk factor.
In Binance Square, privacy is often still regarded as a 'technical advantage' or 'narrative label,' but in more institutional contexts, it increasingly resembles something that must be explained, audited, and integrated into processes.
This is also why I use the term 'privacy chain' less and less when looking at DUSK—this label tends to obscure the real problems it aims to solve.
After sitting second in TVL, Plasma's ambition: to be the stablecoin settlement layer of Bitcoin capital.
Brothers, do you look at the TVL ranking? Sometimes I deliberately avoid looking at the TVL ranking, because most of the time it’s just another kind of 'narrative leaderboard'. But recently, the data from @Plasma has made it hard for me to ignore. The stablecoin TVL firmly stands second in the world, not a flash in the pan surge from 4.5 billion to 5.5 billion dollars, but a continuously existing state. At this time, if you look back at what Plasma is doing, you will find that its goal is no longer just 'a faster settlement chain'.
What it is targeting is actually the entire capital system of Bitcoin.
What it is targeting is actually the entire capital system of Bitcoin.
These past few days of browsing Binance Square, I have become less excited about 'What AI can do' and more concerned about another issue: will it disrupt the flow of human thoughts? Too many systems, once AI is implemented, become faster, fuller, and louder, making entertainment no longer enjoyable.
My view of @Vanarchain is a bit different. It doesn't treat AI as an all-powerful brain, but rather disassembles it for use. Neutron acts like memory, gradually recording users' long-term behaviors and preferences; Kayon is more like a judger, responsible for reasoning and adjustments at critical points. AI doesn't steal the spotlight; it quietly brings the experience back on track when you're about to be interrupted.
More importantly, these behaviors are visible and traceable. It's not a black box operation or an emotion-driven algorithmic game. For the entertainment ecosystem, the sense of transparency is itself part of the immersive experience; once it spirals out of control, the experience collapses immediately.
On the issue of zero carbon, I actually find it quite realistic. Brands and creators must enter Web3; they cannot rely long-term on high-consumption systems. Vanar makes operations 'light', which is actually leaving room for long-term participation.
When it comes to $VANRY , this is not about stimulating narratives, but about slow variables. AI protects the flow of thoughts, and the system maintains restraint, allowing value to accumulate slowly instead of burning out all at once.
#Vanar
My view of @Vanarchain is a bit different. It doesn't treat AI as an all-powerful brain, but rather disassembles it for use. Neutron acts like memory, gradually recording users' long-term behaviors and preferences; Kayon is more like a judger, responsible for reasoning and adjustments at critical points. AI doesn't steal the spotlight; it quietly brings the experience back on track when you're about to be interrupted.
More importantly, these behaviors are visible and traceable. It's not a black box operation or an emotion-driven algorithmic game. For the entertainment ecosystem, the sense of transparency is itself part of the immersive experience; once it spirals out of control, the experience collapses immediately.
On the issue of zero carbon, I actually find it quite realistic. Brands and creators must enter Web3; they cannot rely long-term on high-consumption systems. Vanar makes operations 'light', which is actually leaving room for long-term participation.
When it comes to $VANRY , this is not about stimulating narratives, but about slow variables. AI protects the flow of thoughts, and the system maintains restraint, allowing value to accumulate slowly instead of burning out all at once.
#Vanar
Brand as a Service (BaaS): Vanar provides enterprises with on-chain 'plug and play' kits
I have recently become increasingly aware of one thing:
The blockchain technology is already lacking 'underlying capabilities'; what it lacks is the interface form that is truly used in the real world.
#Layer1 In the volume TPS, #Layer2 In the volume cost, modular in volume architecture, but when I look from the perspective of a traditional enterprise, content IP, entertainment brand, or even a regional government, these discussions are almost meaningless.
What they really care about is a simpler and more brutal question: Can I use it? How long can I use it? After using it, can it continue to operate?
The blockchain technology is already lacking 'underlying capabilities'; what it lacks is the interface form that is truly used in the real world.
#Layer1 In the volume TPS, #Layer2 In the volume cost, modular in volume architecture, but when I look from the perspective of a traditional enterprise, content IP, entertainment brand, or even a regional government, these discussions are almost meaningless.
What they really care about is a simpler and more brutal question: Can I use it? How long can I use it? After using it, can it continue to operate?
Why are PayPal's trembling? Plasma is rewriting the settlement protocol
Many people are still discussing whether stablecoins are the next big opportunity, but I am more concerned about another issue: when settlement is redefined, how much of a moat do traditional payment networks still have?
#SWIFT Slow, expensive, and complex hierarchy, this is an open fact; Visa and #PayPal seem smooth, but behind it is multi-layered clearing, reconciliation, pre-funding, and high system maintenance costs. Every transaction is prolonging the life of that old system.
#Plasma When it appeared, the logic completely changed. It is not about 'doing payment applications,' but about turning the settlement itself into a low-friction infrastructure. On-chain settlement is near real-time, costs are close to zero, and the state is periodically anchored to Bitcoin, with security not relying on centralized institutions for endorsement.
More critically, it is the cost structure. The unit cost of traditional payment networks comes from large compliance teams, clearing networks, and multinational infrastructure, while Plasma's operating costs mainly come from node staking and network maintenance. Now, there are already hundreds of nodes participating in settlement on the mainnet, with tens of millions in staking providing security for the network, but the marginal settlement cost hardly increases with transaction volume.
What does this mean? It means that as transaction scale expands, the advantage of @Plasma is not linear but exponential. For PayPal, the question is no longer 'whether to access blockchain,' but when settlement is commoditized, what else can they charge for?
I increasingly feel that the real threat of Plasma is not a specific payment company but the entire 'high-cost settlement protocol' itself. When settlement becomes as cheap as bandwidth, the old system will naturally begin to tremble.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
Many people are still discussing whether stablecoins are the next big opportunity, but I am more concerned about another issue: when settlement is redefined, how much of a moat do traditional payment networks still have?
#SWIFT Slow, expensive, and complex hierarchy, this is an open fact; Visa and #PayPal seem smooth, but behind it is multi-layered clearing, reconciliation, pre-funding, and high system maintenance costs. Every transaction is prolonging the life of that old system.
#Plasma When it appeared, the logic completely changed. It is not about 'doing payment applications,' but about turning the settlement itself into a low-friction infrastructure. On-chain settlement is near real-time, costs are close to zero, and the state is periodically anchored to Bitcoin, with security not relying on centralized institutions for endorsement.
More critically, it is the cost structure. The unit cost of traditional payment networks comes from large compliance teams, clearing networks, and multinational infrastructure, while Plasma's operating costs mainly come from node staking and network maintenance. Now, there are already hundreds of nodes participating in settlement on the mainnet, with tens of millions in staking providing security for the network, but the marginal settlement cost hardly increases with transaction volume.
What does this mean? It means that as transaction scale expands, the advantage of @Plasma is not linear but exponential. For PayPal, the question is no longer 'whether to access blockchain,' but when settlement is commoditized, what else can they charge for?
I increasingly feel that the real threat of Plasma is not a specific payment company but the entire 'high-cost settlement protocol' itself. When settlement becomes as cheap as bandwidth, the old system will naturally begin to tremble.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
Brothers, when it comes to privacy, don't you first think of 'hiding people'? Address anonymity, identity obfuscation, on-chain no one knows who you are. But recently, while researching @Dusk , I realized one thing: privacy aimed at institutions fundamentally lies not in identity, but in the transaction logic itself.
First, let's compare with existing solutions. Solutions like Monero and Zcash offer 'full coverage' privacy, suitable for personal transfers, but for institutions, this design is catastrophic—identity is untraceable, regulation cannot intervene, which is equivalent to automatically excluding oneself from the compliant financial system. On the other hand, traditional #EVM chains are completely transparent; identities may be KYC compliant, but order books, positions, and trading strategies are all exposed, which institutions cannot accept either.
DUSK's choice is very restrained: it does not pursue the disappearance of identity but rather makes 'what you are doing' unobservable by the market. Identity can be verified when necessary, even penetrated by regulators; however, transaction amounts, matching processes, and asset structures are encrypted through #零知识证明 and confidential smart contracts. What is validated is 'whether compliance is established,' not 'what the details are.'
This is very important in real cases. For example, in regulated securities trading, regulators care about: whether the buying and selling are legal, whether the counterparty is compliant, and whether the settlement is completed; not about the position size or trading rhythm of a certain institution. DUSK uses privacy resources to protect transaction logic, rather than wasting them on identity anonymity that is 'anti-regulation'; this is the kind of privacy that institutions can use and dare to use.
My view is very clear: #DUSK is not about 'hiding finance,' but about building financial infrastructure where 'rules are visible, strategies are invisible.' This kind of privacy has the opportunity to become the default configuration, rather than a gray privilege.
$DUSK #Dusk
First, let's compare with existing solutions. Solutions like Monero and Zcash offer 'full coverage' privacy, suitable for personal transfers, but for institutions, this design is catastrophic—identity is untraceable, regulation cannot intervene, which is equivalent to automatically excluding oneself from the compliant financial system. On the other hand, traditional #EVM chains are completely transparent; identities may be KYC compliant, but order books, positions, and trading strategies are all exposed, which institutions cannot accept either.
DUSK's choice is very restrained: it does not pursue the disappearance of identity but rather makes 'what you are doing' unobservable by the market. Identity can be verified when necessary, even penetrated by regulators; however, transaction amounts, matching processes, and asset structures are encrypted through #零知识证明 and confidential smart contracts. What is validated is 'whether compliance is established,' not 'what the details are.'
This is very important in real cases. For example, in regulated securities trading, regulators care about: whether the buying and selling are legal, whether the counterparty is compliant, and whether the settlement is completed; not about the position size or trading rhythm of a certain institution. DUSK uses privacy resources to protect transaction logic, rather than wasting them on identity anonymity that is 'anti-regulation'; this is the kind of privacy that institutions can use and dare to use.
My view is very clear: #DUSK is not about 'hiding finance,' but about building financial infrastructure where 'rules are visible, strategies are invisible.' This kind of privacy has the opportunity to become the default configuration, rather than a gray privilege.
$DUSK #Dusk
New Variables in the Settlement Layer War: Plasma Reconstructs Security Boundaries with 'Bitcoin Anchoring + Intent Chain'
Hello everyone, I am Tang Tang and also Moon. First of all, I want to say that this article is just my personal opinion, not a tweet from the project party, nor an official interpretation, just some observations and thoughts I had while browsing Binance Square and looking at on-chain data. Recently, the market has been sluggish, with BTC fluctuating around $88,000. While I was looking at the on-chain stablecoin liquidity chart, I suddenly realized: the competition between Layer 1 and Layer 2, the game of security and efficiency, has quietly introduced new variables. Recent actions have completely changed my imagination of the settlement layer.
Before looking at @Dusk , I had been focusing on traditional RWA on-chain projects: #Avalanche , #Ethereum and various security tokenization experiments. Most projects forcefully bind issuance, ownership, and liquidity together: if you want to trade, you must manage all data on the same chain and under the same contract. On the surface, the chain appears transparent and decentralized, but for institutions, it’s like putting financial secrets in a window — excessive transparency can actually deter large market makers or funds from entering.
#DUSK 's approach is entirely different. Taking NPEX as an example, they have migrated part of their stock and bond business to the DUSK chain. On this chain, issuance, ownership, and liquidity are managed in layers: the issuance process is responsible for generating compliant on-chain assets, ownership records are encrypted for protection, and the liquidity module independently matches and settles, while all operations support zero-knowledge verification. Institutions can confirm the legitimacy of transactions, but outsiders cannot peek into positions or strategies. Real data is grounded, node verification is efficient, and regulation can be audited without exposing core information.
I personally believe that this design is the true underlying financial infrastructure thinking. It makes the on-chain compliance of assets no longer just a concept, but an executable and reusable architecture. For investors and institutions, this means that on-chain trading is no longer constrained by privacy or regulatory conflicts, and it also provides a standardized solution for the integration of Web3 and traditional finance. Paying attention to @Dusk is not just about focusing on a token, but looking at a set of on-chain logic that could define "institutional-level DeFi infrastructure." $DUSK #Dusk
#DUSK 's approach is entirely different. Taking NPEX as an example, they have migrated part of their stock and bond business to the DUSK chain. On this chain, issuance, ownership, and liquidity are managed in layers: the issuance process is responsible for generating compliant on-chain assets, ownership records are encrypted for protection, and the liquidity module independently matches and settles, while all operations support zero-knowledge verification. Institutions can confirm the legitimacy of transactions, but outsiders cannot peek into positions or strategies. Real data is grounded, node verification is efficient, and regulation can be audited without exposing core information.
I personally believe that this design is the true underlying financial infrastructure thinking. It makes the on-chain compliance of assets no longer just a concept, but an executable and reusable architecture. For investors and institutions, this means that on-chain trading is no longer constrained by privacy or regulatory conflicts, and it also provides a standardized solution for the integration of Web3 and traditional finance. Paying attention to @Dusk is not just about focusing on a token, but looking at a set of on-chain logic that could define "institutional-level DeFi infrastructure." $DUSK #Dusk
What Does Modularization Really Mean? While ETH is still under pressure, DUSK has already written 'evolution' into its network structure
Many people discuss Binance Square #ETH every day, and the angles are very familiar: support levels, rebound ranges, ETF expectations, L2 sharding.
These analyses are certainly meaningful, but as I watch, it raises a more fundamental question:
When the core assumption of a chain changes, can it rely on 'upgrades', or does it have to 'start over'?
This issue is actually one of the reasons why ETH has been under pressure repeatedly over the years.
If you look back at the development history of #以太坊 , you will find that it is not lacking in excellence; on the contrary, it is too successful. Precisely because of its success, many early designs were 'locked' into the mainnet structure. Whether it's the execution environment, data availability, or account models and state bloat issues, each adjustment carries a huge historical burden.
These analyses are certainly meaningful, but as I watch, it raises a more fundamental question:
When the core assumption of a chain changes, can it rely on 'upgrades', or does it have to 'start over'?
This issue is actually one of the reasons why ETH has been under pressure repeatedly over the years.
If you look back at the development history of #以太坊 , you will find that it is not lacking in excellence; on the contrary, it is too successful. Precisely because of its success, many early designs were 'locked' into the mainnet structure. Whether it's the execution environment, data availability, or account models and state bloat issues, each adjustment carries a huge historical burden.
To be honest, I didn't really understand why so many people choose Plasma for stablecoin settlement until I watched its recent developments and finally understood how hardcore its advantages are. First, speed. When traditional public chains handle small payments, you might transfer a stablecoin worth 10 dollars, and the fees can be painfully high, while @Plasma achieves almost sub-second confirmation, making the payment experience as smooth as Web2. That's not enough; it regularly synchronizes state snapshots to the #比特币 chain, ensuring that while the speed is fast, the security still offers BTC-level guarantees.
Next is #去中心化 and censorship resistance. Plasma's node admission and staking mechanism are not just for show; every node participating in the settlement must lock tokens, which ensures network security and transaction immutability. I've even seen that there are already over 120 active nodes on the mainnet, with total staking exceeding 3500 million $XPL , which means the network is not a game for a few people, but truly decentralized.
What's more interesting is that the tokens are not just staking tickets but also governance rights. Holders of $XPL can vote to determine stablecoin settlement parameters, cross-chain strategies, and node admission rules, making the tokens practically useful in the ecosystem rather than relying on transaction fees to support their value. Recently, #Plasma integrated NEAR Intents, making large cross-chain settlements smoother, allowing funds to flow from the chain to real-world payment scenarios, further highlighting the strategic value of the tokens.
I believe the true advantage of Plasma lies in this set of combinations: sub-second payments + BTC security anchoring + node staking and governance rights + cross-chain liquidity. It makes stablecoin settlements not only fast but also secure, scalable, and decentralized—essentially addressing all the common pain points faced by L1 or L2 in payment scenarios.
#plasma $XPL
Next is #去中心化 and censorship resistance. Plasma's node admission and staking mechanism are not just for show; every node participating in the settlement must lock tokens, which ensures network security and transaction immutability. I've even seen that there are already over 120 active nodes on the mainnet, with total staking exceeding 3500 million $XPL , which means the network is not a game for a few people, but truly decentralized.
What's more interesting is that the tokens are not just staking tickets but also governance rights. Holders of $XPL can vote to determine stablecoin settlement parameters, cross-chain strategies, and node admission rules, making the tokens practically useful in the ecosystem rather than relying on transaction fees to support their value. Recently, #Plasma integrated NEAR Intents, making large cross-chain settlements smoother, allowing funds to flow from the chain to real-world payment scenarios, further highlighting the strategic value of the tokens.
I believe the true advantage of Plasma lies in this set of combinations: sub-second payments + BTC security anchoring + node staking and governance rights + cross-chain liquidity. It makes stablecoin settlements not only fast but also secure, scalable, and decentralized—essentially addressing all the common pain points faced by L1 or L2 in payment scenarios.
#plasma $XPL
Recently, the market has seen a rebound, and familiar discussions have started again in Binance Square: emotions take off first, funds then pour in, and finally entertainment and applications are led by prices. #GameFi , #元宇宙 , this cycle is something we’ve all seen too many times. So I am more concerned about a neglected issue—how does the entertainment ecosystem avoid being hijacked by financial speculation?
From my observation of the design of @Vanarchain , it does not attempt to "eliminate speculation," but rather chooses to reduce speculation's dominance over the ecosystem. The key is not to limit trading, but to focus on what tokens "can do" in the system. If $VANRY only carries price narratives, then entertainment will surely be crushed by financial logic; but when tokens are more tied to actions, participation, and identity, things start to change.
Vanar's approach is more about breaking down value. Short-term price fluctuations exist, but the core experience does not fully rely on token ups and downs. Your investments in games, the metaverse, and content will create value accumulation that cannot be quickly extracted. In other words, money can flow in and out, but experiences and identities are hard to take away through speculation.
This is actually a form of structural defense. Speculative funds seek liquidity and efficiency, while entertainment ecosystems rely on time, emotions, and participation frequency. When the return paths of the two do not completely overlap, finance cannot completely take over the narrative. Tokens continue to circulate, but they are no longer the only value anchor.
So in my view, what truly protects the entertainment economy is not "anti-finance," but making finance a supporting role. When speculation cannot define all meanings, the ecosystem can establish itself long-term. This may not be the most exciting model, but it is likely to be the more durable one.
#vanar $VANRY
From my observation of the design of @Vanarchain , it does not attempt to "eliminate speculation," but rather chooses to reduce speculation's dominance over the ecosystem. The key is not to limit trading, but to focus on what tokens "can do" in the system. If $VANRY only carries price narratives, then entertainment will surely be crushed by financial logic; but when tokens are more tied to actions, participation, and identity, things start to change.
Vanar's approach is more about breaking down value. Short-term price fluctuations exist, but the core experience does not fully rely on token ups and downs. Your investments in games, the metaverse, and content will create value accumulation that cannot be quickly extracted. In other words, money can flow in and out, but experiences and identities are hard to take away through speculation.
This is actually a form of structural defense. Speculative funds seek liquidity and efficiency, while entertainment ecosystems rely on time, emotions, and participation frequency. When the return paths of the two do not completely overlap, finance cannot completely take over the narrative. Tokens continue to circulate, but they are no longer the only value anchor.
So in my view, what truly protects the entertainment economy is not "anti-finance," but making finance a supporting role. When speculation cannot define all meanings, the ecosystem can establish itself long-term. This may not be the most exciting model, but it is likely to be the more durable one.
#vanar $VANRY
From Fragmented Infrastructure to End-to-End Integration: How Vanar Dissects the Real Dilemma of AI + Blockchain Implementation
Recently, when I was looking at AI + blockchain related projects, I felt a strong sense of fatigue.
It's not that the technology isn't cool, but it seems that everyone is solving 'local issues'.
Some projects talk about putting AI models on the chain, some discuss decentralized computing power, some mention data rights, privacy computing, and the Agent economy. But if you think carefully, you'll find a common point:
Every piece is very smart, but they can't form a real system that can be implemented.
This is what I refer to as the 'fragmented infrastructure dilemma'.
And Vanar has given me a completely different answer to this problem.
It's not that the technology isn't cool, but it seems that everyone is solving 'local issues'.
Some projects talk about putting AI models on the chain, some discuss decentralized computing power, some mention data rights, privacy computing, and the Agent economy. But if you think carefully, you'll find a common point:
Every piece is very smart, but they can't form a real system that can be implemented.
This is what I refer to as the 'fragmented infrastructure dilemma'.
And Vanar has given me a completely different answer to this problem.
Compatibility and Beyond: How Plasma Makes On-Chain Strategy Execution Faster than Ethereum
First, let me clarify that the project team will not post this content on the official Twitter account; this is my personal analysis and observation, representing only my personal views. The daily market trends and hotspots of Binance Plaza make me realize that if one does not understand the compatibility logic and token mechanism of Plasma, many people may never truly appreciate its real value.
This morning while I was browsing the plaza, I saw that ETH has once again broken through 12,000 USD, and the market is fluctuating exceptionally violently. At such times, the efficiency difference in on-chain settlement and trade execution becomes particularly obvious. On the traditional Ethereum chain, your trading intentions may have to wait several minutes or even over ten minutes to be realized, while in high-frequency operations and strategic trading, these few minutes could mean losing out on opportunities altogether.
This morning while I was browsing the plaza, I saw that ETH has once again broken through 12,000 USD, and the market is fluctuating exceptionally violently. At such times, the efficiency difference in on-chain settlement and trade execution becomes particularly obvious. On the traditional Ethereum chain, your trading intentions may have to wait several minutes or even over ten minutes to be realized, while in high-frequency operations and strategic trading, these few minutes could mean losing out on opportunities altogether.
Today I saw the news about the loss and seizure of Bitcoin in South Korea, and I couldn't help but think of the core contradiction when institutions operate on Layer 1 chains: the complete transparency of public chains and the rigid need for business secrets by financial institutions are often at odds. Large market makers and hedge funds would never move significant funds in an environment where order flow, positions, and trading strategies are all public. Recently, I have been studying the technology stack of @Dusk and found that its value is very clear — it is not just another replica of a general EVM chain, but rather it resolves the fundamental conflict between 'privacy' and 'compliance' at the protocol level.
Dusk's breakthrough lies in the deep integration of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP), especially in the design of Confidential Smart Contracts. Unlike the inefficient solutions of traditional chains that attach whitelists, #Dusk adopts a 'Compliance-by-Design' model: transaction data is computed off-chain, and on-chain nodes only verify the integrity of the computation and the legality of state transitions. This not only improves efficiency but also mitigates centralized risks.
More cleverly, it allows the 'right to be forgotten' under GDPR and the immutability of blockchain to no longer be in conflict — personal data is not directly put on-chain; only 'compliance proofs' are recorded on-chain. For the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), Dusk's XSC standard redefines the clearing logic: compliance becomes a prerequisite for transactions rather than a post-audit. Atomic-level compliance checks directly reduce reconciliation costs, bringing the complex processes of traditional finance onto the chain.
For me, this represents a qualitative change in Web3: Institutional DeFi can meet regulatory requirements while preserving privacy, without having to choose between trust and decentralization. Dusk has proven through cryptography that privacy protection and regulatory access can coexist, which is the truly implementable institutional-level on-chain financial infrastructure. $DUSK
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Dusk's breakthrough lies in the deep integration of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP), especially in the design of Confidential Smart Contracts. Unlike the inefficient solutions of traditional chains that attach whitelists, #Dusk adopts a 'Compliance-by-Design' model: transaction data is computed off-chain, and on-chain nodes only verify the integrity of the computation and the legality of state transitions. This not only improves efficiency but also mitigates centralized risks.
More cleverly, it allows the 'right to be forgotten' under GDPR and the immutability of blockchain to no longer be in conflict — personal data is not directly put on-chain; only 'compliance proofs' are recorded on-chain. For the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), Dusk's XSC standard redefines the clearing logic: compliance becomes a prerequisite for transactions rather than a post-audit. Atomic-level compliance checks directly reduce reconciliation costs, bringing the complex processes of traditional finance onto the chain.
For me, this represents a qualitative change in Web3: Institutional DeFi can meet regulatory requirements while preserving privacy, without having to choose between trust and decentralization. Dusk has proven through cryptography that privacy protection and regulatory access can coexist, which is the truly implementable institutional-level on-chain financial infrastructure. $DUSK
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Today at Binance Square, I saw people discussing the comparison of the metaverse track, and Virtua was compared to Decentraland and The Sandbox. My first reaction was: people often focus only on technical parameters while ignoring the essence—ecological positioning.
@Vanarchain 's Virtua does not exist to 'compare image quality, TPS, or map area' with others. The logic of Decentraland is land economy and free market experimentation, Sandbox emphasizes creation and asset trading, but Virtua is more like creating a 'cultural coordinate system': it aims to establish habits of long-term participation, creation, and immersion among players, rather than mere trading and speculation. $VANRY here is not just a token, but more like a quantification of participation and a certificate of cultural identity.
Technology is just a tool; the real difference lies in positioning. Decentraland uses blockchain for land assetization, Sandbox connects creators and assets with chains, but #Virtua uses the chain to carry the experience itself, embedding entertainment, social interaction, and immersion into ecological rules. This means the motivation for user participation is not just economic returns but also identity recognition and community belonging.
Recently, the market for NFTs and the metaverse has seen significant fluctuations, but I find Virtua's user behavior to be more stable: the discussions are not about short-term prices but about gameplay, narrative, and virtual identity. The mechanism behind this behavior is the cultural stickiness and long-term incentives embedded in the underlying design of #vanar .
So for me, the difference between Virtua and Decentraland, Sandbox lies not in how high the technology stack is, but in what kind of ecosystem it wants to create with the chain. Some pursue profits, some pursue creation, while Virtua transforms 'fun' into a kind of sustainable value.
#vanar
$VANRY
@Vanarchain 's Virtua does not exist to 'compare image quality, TPS, or map area' with others. The logic of Decentraland is land economy and free market experimentation, Sandbox emphasizes creation and asset trading, but Virtua is more like creating a 'cultural coordinate system': it aims to establish habits of long-term participation, creation, and immersion among players, rather than mere trading and speculation. $VANRY here is not just a token, but more like a quantification of participation and a certificate of cultural identity.
Technology is just a tool; the real difference lies in positioning. Decentraland uses blockchain for land assetization, Sandbox connects creators and assets with chains, but #Virtua uses the chain to carry the experience itself, embedding entertainment, social interaction, and immersion into ecological rules. This means the motivation for user participation is not just economic returns but also identity recognition and community belonging.
Recently, the market for NFTs and the metaverse has seen significant fluctuations, but I find Virtua's user behavior to be more stable: the discussions are not about short-term prices but about gameplay, narrative, and virtual identity. The mechanism behind this behavior is the cultural stickiness and long-term incentives embedded in the underlying design of #vanar .
So for me, the difference between Virtua and Decentraland, Sandbox lies not in how high the technology stack is, but in what kind of ecosystem it wants to create with the chain. Some pursue profits, some pursue creation, while Virtua transforms 'fun' into a kind of sustainable value.
#vanar
$VANRY
The Cornerstone of Trillions in RWA: In 2026, why do institutions only trust DUSK's 'compliance sentinel' nodes?
The Davos World Economic Forum 2026 hasn't started yet, but the atmosphere is already quite clear.
Over the past two weeks, I've reviewed a lot of leaked topic directions, with keywords highly concentrated on three main issues: the institutionalization of digital assets, cross-border compliance, and 'trusted infrastructure.' Hardly anyone is discussing 'the next hundredfold coin'; the focus is entirely on 'who will take responsibility.'
This point forms an interesting contrast to the sentiment at Binance Square today. The market is still scoring projects based on price, but the system in Davos is concerned with:
Over the past two weeks, I've reviewed a lot of leaked topic directions, with keywords highly concentrated on three main issues: the institutionalization of digital assets, cross-border compliance, and 'trusted infrastructure.' Hardly anyone is discussing 'the next hundredfold coin'; the focus is entirely on 'who will take responsibility.'
This point forms an interesting contrast to the sentiment at Binance Square today. The market is still scoring projects based on price, but the system in Davos is concerned with:
I have been thinking, without relying on Gas fees for revenue, what exactly supports Plasma's tokens? Many people frown when they hear 'Gasless', doubting that the tokens will lose value. After all, by 2026, the Gas income from L1 in the market easily exceeds tens of millions of dollars, while Plasma chooses zero fees, which naturally causes anxiety among investors.
However, I carefully studied its mechanism and found that the value is completely in other places. First is the staking mechanism: the current mainnet @Plasma has 120 active nodes, with a total staking amount exceeding 35 million XPL. If you want to participate in settlement and network maintenance, you must lock up tokens; this scarcity itself is a source of value. Nodes are not something that anyone can join at will; every lock-in relates to network security.
Secondly, there is governance power. Token holders can vote to determine stablecoin settlement parameters, node admission rules, and even influence payment subsidy strategies. I even saw that in one vote, more than 40% of the voting power was concentrated in the hands of a few large holders, creating potential conflicts: the concentration of liquidity and governance power may make small investors worry about being influenced in decision-making, but at the same time, it reflects the scarcity of tokens and the value of power.
Therefore, the value of the Token #Plasma lies not in the fee revenue, but in the network's rigid demand + the scarcity of rights. Holding tokens is not just an asset, but a 'ticket' to participate in ecological operations and share in growth dividends. Gasless does not weaken it; instead, it shifts the value of the tokens from transaction fees to the core power of the network, which is where the real conflict lies and is also the core of Plasma's investment logic in 2026.
#plasma @Plasma $XPL
However, I carefully studied its mechanism and found that the value is completely in other places. First is the staking mechanism: the current mainnet @Plasma has 120 active nodes, with a total staking amount exceeding 35 million XPL. If you want to participate in settlement and network maintenance, you must lock up tokens; this scarcity itself is a source of value. Nodes are not something that anyone can join at will; every lock-in relates to network security.
Secondly, there is governance power. Token holders can vote to determine stablecoin settlement parameters, node admission rules, and even influence payment subsidy strategies. I even saw that in one vote, more than 40% of the voting power was concentrated in the hands of a few large holders, creating potential conflicts: the concentration of liquidity and governance power may make small investors worry about being influenced in decision-making, but at the same time, it reflects the scarcity of tokens and the value of power.
Therefore, the value of the Token #Plasma lies not in the fee revenue, but in the network's rigid demand + the scarcity of rights. Holding tokens is not just an asset, but a 'ticket' to participate in ecological operations and share in growth dividends. Gasless does not weaken it; instead, it shifts the value of the tokens from transaction fees to the core power of the network, which is where the real conflict lies and is also the core of Plasma's investment logic in 2026.
#plasma @Plasma $XPL
On the eve of the Grayscale BNB ETF launch, I saw the real value of emotions and behaviors in Virtua
This morning while browsing cryptocurrency news, my mind was almost blown by two things happening simultaneously: on one side was the news of Grayscale submitting the #BNB ETF, and on the other was a new interaction I found in the virtual world Virtua @Vanarchain . The former represents a hard intervention of traditional finance into the crypto world, while the latter is the softest power in the digital ecosystem—emotional immersion and behavioral feedback. I can't help but think that by putting these two together, we can see an interesting contrast: capital betting on the future vs. users investing in experience, and surprisingly, the ways of value generation are completely different.
Why 300 million euros? A deep analysis of how Dusk's compliance engine opens the trillion-level door of RWA.
If you just take '300 million euros' as a promotional figure, I suggest you pause. Because in the RWA track, numbers are never casually written KPIs, but are results extracted layer by layer by regulation, law, accounting, and clearing systems.
In my view, the 300 million euros that Dusk and NPEX are throwing out is more like an 'institutional permitted upper limit' rather than a lower limit of ambition.
To illustrate this point, I must first compare Dusk with similar projects; otherwise, it's easy to be carried away by emotions.
In the past few years, RWA projects have generally been divided into two categories. One is 'on-chain asset display type', which turns real estate, bonds, and fund shares into tokens that appear compliant, while in reality, issuance, clearing, and the investor registry are still off-chain; the chain is merely a bookkeeping UI. The other is 'financial engineering outsourcing type', which directly creates contracts on Ethereum or L2, and then adds KYC, whitelists, and freeze functions at the application layer, hoping to exchange contract complexity for compliance certainty.
In my view, the 300 million euros that Dusk and NPEX are throwing out is more like an 'institutional permitted upper limit' rather than a lower limit of ambition.
To illustrate this point, I must first compare Dusk with similar projects; otherwise, it's easy to be carried away by emotions.
In the past few years, RWA projects have generally been divided into two categories. One is 'on-chain asset display type', which turns real estate, bonds, and fund shares into tokens that appear compliant, while in reality, issuance, clearing, and the investor registry are still off-chain; the chain is merely a bookkeeping UI. The other is 'financial engineering outsourcing type', which directly creates contracts on Ethereum or L2, and then adds KYC, whitelists, and freeze functions at the application layer, hoping to exchange contract complexity for compliance certainty.
Login to explore more contents