2026-01-17 06:25:10

Looking at DUSK's on-chain data, it indeed can be a bit confusing. A public chain that has already entered the forefront of the privacy/compliance track in terms of market capitalization, yet its daily active addresses on the mainnet have long been stuck at a few thousand. When compared to leading public chains with hundreds of thousands of addresses, the gap is really striking.

But thinking about this from another angle, it might actually highlight the core issue. DUSK was never designed to attract retail traffic from the start. Its positioning is very clear—enterprise-level, low-frequency, high-net-worth application scenarios. Although it has fewer active addresses, the average transaction size of these addresses is likely far beyond your imagination.

A common misconception is to evaluate DUSK using the general standards for public chains, taking "number of addresses" as the sole indicator of success. For B2B chains, this logic is completely reversed. A small number of high-value institutional users can reflect a chain's true value much more effectively than a vast number of low-frequency retail users. Less is more—focus, choice, and strategy.

DUSK30,34%

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RealYieldWizard

· 9h ago

Ah, I need to counter this logic. Does having fewer addresses really mean high net worth? Then why haven't I seen any noteworthy applications in the DUSK ecosystem?

View OriginalReply0

WalletDivorcer

· 9h ago

Ah, here we go again with the "less is more" argument... It sounds a bit like an excuse for low activity, doesn't it? --- Institutional users may find it satisfying, but can they really support the ecosystem? Or is this just self-comforting? --- Wait, are all those thousands of addresses really big accounts? Or is it possible that no one is using them? --- I believe it. The logic of B2B chains is indeed different, but does the market think the same... --- I admit that high-net-worth addresses have large transaction volumes, but what about user stickiness and ecosystem vitality? --- It sounds good as a strategic choice, but honestly, isn't it just because the traffic isn't enough? --- I understand the idea behind DUSK, but privacy chains are so cold... Do they really have such strong compliance needs? --- Less isn't necessarily a bad thing, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's an advantage. --- So, is DUSK aiming to be that small but refined chain? Are there any successful cases? --- From another perspective, who are these big address holders? Are they really institutions or... just wallets of friends?

View OriginalReply0

LuckyBlindCat

· 9h ago

Ha, I understand this logic. I've heard many times the saying "less is more," but there are few projects that truly have execution power. When the address activity is low, they start telling stories. Let's wait and see if DUSK can really implement this B2B logic. Although the ideal is beautiful, the biggest fear in the chain circle is self-congratulation. To put it simply, it depends on the subsequent trading volume and the genuine participation of institutions; data will speak for itself. Feels more like an excuse for low activity? But it’s indeed somewhat interesting. This idea makes sense, but how many are still willing to bet on it? I’m watching.

View OriginalReply0

HashRatePhilosopher

· 9h ago

Hmm, I respect this logic. The numbers are indeed eye-opening, but on the other hand, in scenarios like Solana with millions of addresses, isn't the main part still supported by junk transactions? For DUSK's B2B approach, being few but refined is probably the key.

View OriginalReply0

PensionDestroyer

· 9h ago

Haha, I've heard this argument too many times. Every time they claim to be "high-end positioning," and then... Is it true that having fewer addresses can be sold as an advantage? Then I might as well just create a private chain, wouldn't that be more fun? Having fewer addresses is a fact, but don't package data issues as a strategy, it's a bit awkward. Institutional users, right? Then what about trading volume data? Show it, talking without action won't convince anyone. This set of theories can be applied to every obscure coin. Why haven't I seen any real large-scale activities on the DUSK chain? High market cap with few addresses, this combination can't hold up... What they say nicely is cold chain, but what's the point?

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 9h ago

I understand this logic, but to be honest, the active address numbers for DUSK are still a bit embarrassing. The comparison between a few thousand and hundreds of thousands really cannot be ignored. --- I've heard the institutional chain explanation too many times. Is there any real data to support it? Otherwise, it's just self-comforting. --- Thinking in reverse is good, but is the B-end chain really as easy to develop as imagined? It seems the risks might actually be greater. --- Low-frequency high-net-worth sounds sophisticated, but can such a chain ecosystem really be built? It feels a bit uncertain. --- Agreed, retail chain and institutional chain are two evaluation systems. Forcing a comparison really doesn't make sense. --- Less is more. I hope DUSK can verify this later. For now, it's still a bit hard to see through. --- Indeed, from a different perspective, DUSK's logic is self-consistent, but whether the market will buy it is another matter.

View OriginalReply0

NotSatoshi

· 10h ago

Oh, this logic is quite interesting. Basically, it's about being refined rather than scattered.

View OriginalReply0