2026-01-14 11:30:22

Recently, an interesting phenomenon has been observed—Dusk's community growth is not driven by memes or airdrops, but rather by attracting people through professional discussions. Their Discord and X communities are filled with debates on privacy and fee markets.

The core discussion revolves around a tough question: Will the high costs of privacy computation eat into validators' profit margins? At first glance, it seems like a fatal flaw, but the community offers an alternative logic—institutional use cases will generate stable and substantial fee flows, enough to cover the costs. This is not just wishful thinking; data after the DuskDS upgrade proves it: network throughput and data availability have significantly improved, with staking surpassing 200 million DUSK and the locked-up ratio reaching 36%.

This reflects a different approach to ecosystem building. It’s not about mass popularity, but precise focus—professional builders and institutional players are the main actors. The FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) applications driven by creators illustrate this well: scenarios like private governance and anonymous checkpoints enable DAOs to truly implement private voting.

This ecosystem positioning has a hidden advantage—it attracts participants with real needs rather than speculators. Low-key but deep—perhaps this is the long-term sustainable strategy. If you're interested, you can check out the on-chain data analysis shared in the community, which often reveals many interesting details.

DUSK-2,38%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoMotivator

· 5h ago

Hey, wait a minute. I like Dusk's approach; it's really a reverse operation. Whether institutional orders are stable or not is another matter, but the validator profit issue is indeed a pitfall. 200 million DUSK locked, accounting for 36%. The numbers look good, but how long can it last? FHE still feels like it's on paper; real-world applications haven't been seen yet. Being low-key ≠ being sustainably long-term. Sometimes, being low-key just means lacking popularity. Will such an ecosystem eventually become a game for big players? However, the quality of community discussions is indeed much better than most projects.

View OriginalReply0

ChainProspector

· 5h ago

I actually quite agree with this approach. Instead of relying on airdrops to cut leeks, focusing on depth... The 200 million DUSK lock-up ratio is really interesting. --- I've been looking into profit models in privacy computing for a long time. It seems that the flow of institutional fees is a solid logic, but I'm just worried that the execution might not keep up with the hype later on. --- DAO privacy voting... If this can really be implemented, I’ll believe that Dusk is not just a storytelling project. --- A 36% lock-up ratio looks okay, but the real test is still ahead. Don’t turn out to be another "low-key depth" disguise. --- FHE application definitely has a barrier to entry. Not everyone can understand it, which actually filters out genuine participants, unlike some projects that want everyone involved. --- Many people haven't noticed the detail about improving data availability. That’s true strength—more convincing than community hype. --- Precise focus on institutional players... sounds good, but I’m just afraid it still can't escape the fate of price volatility.

View OriginalReply0

ser_we_are_ngmi

· 5h ago

Honestly, I have to admit, I’m quite impressed with Dusk’s approach. Not relying on airdrops to cut the leeks actually attracts genuine builders. Just looking at the 36% staking ratio, you can tell this isn’t retail investors bottom-fishing data. I hadn’t fully understood the logic of stable fee flows for institutions before, but now seeing DuskDS’s performance data, there’s something there. FHE is indeed a real necessity; DAO privacy voting isn’t a gimmick, it can truly solve problems. But I’m still curious—how long can this professional route sustain popularity? Will it still rely on marketing to attract people later on? I need to dig into the on-chain data analysis of the community; I feel there are quite a few clues to be found in the details. Dusk’s strategy is definitely distinct from other projects. It’s low-key, but the data is there. I just worry that in the end, it might still fall under the curse of cycles, no matter how professional. If the cost of privacy computing can truly be solved through institutional use cases, then they might really create something significant.

View OriginalReply0

MeaninglessApe

· 5h ago

Wow, this is the real gameplay. Not relying on airdrops or memes, but instead attracting genuine institutions with real money. This logic is pretty solid. Concerns about validator profits are directly crushed by fee flows. Staking exceeding 200 million is no exaggeration; the data speaks for itself. I’m optimistic about the combination of privacy + institutional demand. Finally, DAO privacy voting can be implemented? It’s about time to do it this way. I didn’t expect the community discussion quality to be this high. The low-key approach to making profits feels much better than those who are always bouncing around.

View OriginalReply0

MysteryBoxAddict

· 5h ago

Ah, this line of thinking is indeed clear-headed, not following the herd to cut leeks—there's some substance to it. I agree with the logic of institutional stable fee flows; the 200 million DUSK lock-up also says something. It's about who ultimately bears the cost of privacy computing; it still depends on real-world application implementation. DAO privacy voting sounds good, but the key is that someone has to actually use it.

View OriginalReply0