J A S M I N E
فتح تداول
حائز على XPL
مُتداول مُتكرر
3.8 سنوات
140 تتابع
4.4K+ المتابعون
8.2K+ إعجاب
599 تمّت مُشاركتها
منشورات
الحافظة الاستثمارية
الكل
اقتباسات
مقاطع فيديو
PINNED
2025 Market Prediction: 🔥🚀🚀
🚀 Bitcoin (BTC): $125,000
🚀 Ethereum (ETH): $9,000
🚀 Cardano (ADA): $4.00
🚀 Polygon (MATIC): $3.50
🚀 Avalanche (AVAX): $180
🚀 Polkadot (DOT): $25
🚀 Shiba Inu (SHIB): $0.000015
🚀 Arbitrum (ARB): $10
🚀 Decentraland (MANA): $6
🚀 Trump Coin (TRUMP): $0.9
🚀 Solana (SOL): $300
#VoteToListOnBinance $BTC
🚀 Bitcoin (BTC): $125,000
🚀 Ethereum (ETH): $9,000
🚀 Cardano (ADA): $4.00
🚀 Polygon (MATIC): $3.50
🚀 Avalanche (AVAX): $180
🚀 Polkadot (DOT): $25
🚀 Shiba Inu (SHIB): $0.000015
🚀 Arbitrum (ARB): $10
🚀 Decentraland (MANA): $6
🚀 Trump Coin (TRUMP): $0.9
🚀 Solana (SOL): $300
#VoteToListOnBinance $BTC
PINNED
$SHIB HIB's burn strategy is 🔥! Key facts:
1. Vitalik Buterin burned 410T $SHIB in 2021.
2. Shibarium burns $SHIB per transaction.
3. Daily burns: millions to billions of tokens.
Buy zones:
- $0.00001-$0.000015 (accumulation)
- $0.000025-$0.00003 (momentum)
Long-term upside potential, but $0.01 requires 99% supply reduction. Are you buying the dip or waiting for more burns?
1. Vitalik Buterin burned 410T $SHIB in 2021.
2. Shibarium burns $SHIB per transaction.
3. Daily burns: millions to billions of tokens.
Buy zones:
- $0.00001-$0.000015 (accumulation)
- $0.000025-$0.00003 (momentum)
Long-term upside potential, but $0.01 requires 99% supply reduction. Are you buying the dip or waiting for more burns?
JUST IN: A newborn giraffe named Hal is going viral for its cuteness as the $HAL token jumps 350%.
#HAL $SOL
#HAL $SOL
Markets reward discipline, not excitement.
Franklin_LFG
·
--
صاعد@Plasma #plasma $XPL
What really stands out with Plasma is how unglamorous the bet is. If most activity is just people moving stablecoins with little or no gas friction, there’s no hype flywheel to lean on. The chain has to earn its keep through boring, consistent settlement demand. That’s why the Bitcoin anchor matters—it’s not a flex, it’s protection when usage, not speculation, pays the bills.
What really stands out with Plasma is how unglamorous the bet is. If most activity is just people moving stablecoins with little or no gas friction, there’s no hype flywheel to lean on. The chain has to earn its keep through boring, consistent settlement demand. That’s why the Bitcoin anchor matters—it’s not a flex, it’s protection when usage, not speculation, pays the bills.
Liquidity shows up before narratives do.
Franklin_LFG
·
--
Plasma’s Throughput Claims: How to Benchmark a Stablecoin Chain Responsibly
I keep thinking about a moment that never makes it into the decks. The room is quiet. Someone from payments ops is staring at a reconciliation sheet with tired eyes. Someone from compliance is asking the same question they always ask, because it’s their job to ask it. Treasury is on the call too, not because they love meetings, but because missing money creates a certain kind of panic that spreads fast. And in the middle of it, someone says, softly, “Do we know it’s final.”
That’s the point where “throughput” stops being an argument and becomes a responsibility.
In crypto, we’re trained to believe the rail should be expressive. Programmable by default. A place where everything can be composed and remixed. It sounds like progress when you’re building in a clean environment with clean assumptions. But real payments aren’t clean. Salaries come with deadlines. Remittances come with emotion. Merchant settlement comes with thin margins and impatient suppliers. Stablecoin usage in high-adoption regions comes with phone batteries at 9%, spotty signal, and a user who doesn’t care what the system is called—only whether it works and whether it stole a day’s wages in fees.
When money shows up for real, the “expressive rail” idea starts to wobble. Not because programmability is evil, but because defaults matter. If the default path is complicated, the default outcome is error. If the system invites creativity at the wrong layer, you end up with incidents that don’t look dramatic in the beginning. They look like drift. A few more retries. A few more stuck transfers. A few more “we’re looking into it” messages from support. Until one day the drift becomes a week you can’t erase.
Both of these statements have to stay true, even if they sound like they conflict.
Money needs to move quietly and cheaply.
Settlement must be final, correct, and boring.
I mean boring as a compliment. Boring like a ledger that matches. Boring like an end-of-day close that doesn’t require heroics. Boring like a payment system that doesn’t make you learn its personality before you can trust it.
Plasma makes more sense when you look at it through that lens. It’s a Layer 1 tailored for stablecoin settlement. Not a general-purpose playground trying to host every kind of experiment. More like a conservative settlement floor designed around the kinds of flows that actually happen: payroll runs, merchant payouts, treasury sweeps, remittance corridors, institutional settlement windows, and the repetitive, unglamorous movement of stable value.
This is why benchmarking throughput responsibly matters. Because the easiest thing in this industry is to claim speed. It’s easy to generate perfect transactions in a lab and measure how many you can cram through when nothing is going wrong. But that’s not a payments benchmark. That’s a performance demo. A responsible benchmark looks like the real week: batching behavior, retries, wallet quirks, network hiccups, partners sending a thousand transfers at once, and support teams trying to explain why a transfer is “pending” without sounding unsure.
In payments ops, the benchmark is not “peak.” The benchmark is “predictable.”
Gasless or stablecoin-paid transactions are a small detail that becomes very human the moment you operate at scale. In most chains, fees are a separate chore. “You want to send money? First go buy a different token so you can pay for the right to send money.” People in crypto accept that like it’s normal. People outside crypto do not. It confuses them. It punishes them. It creates this weird feeling that the system is making you do extra work just to prove you belong there.
And it creates mistakes. People run out of fee token. People buy the wrong one. People send funds to an exchange and then realize they can’t withdraw because they forgot to keep gas. Support gets the ticket. Ops gets the escalation. Treasury gets dragged in because now you’re manually fixing what should have been a routine transfer.
Plasma’s stablecoin-first posture is basically saying: remove the side quests. If the purpose is stablecoin settlement, paying fees should not require a second balance and a second mental model. You can argue about implementation all day, but the intent is straightforward: fewer steps, fewer ways to fail, fewer reasons for a user to feel stupid for trying to move their own money.
Sub-second finality is another thing that gets talked about like it’s a trophy. But if you’ve ever sat through a late-night settlement check, you know speed isn’t the core feeling. Certainty is. The moment you stop watching a transfer and start treating it as done is the moment operations can breathe. Finality that arrives quickly doesn’t just make things faster. It removes limbo. It reduces disputes. It shrinks the window where someone can say, “Wait, is this actually settled?” and force the whole organization to pause.
So when Plasma talks about sub-second finality through PlasmaBFT, the serious framing isn’t “we’re faster.” It’s “we’re easier to operate.” It’s “we reduce the time you spend holding your breath.” In treasury terms, it’s the difference between making decisions off settled truth versus guessing around pending states.
EVM compatibility fits into this the same way. Not as a badge. As continuity. Teams already know the tooling. Auditors already know how to look at Solidity. Engineers have muscle memory. Monitoring stacks exist. Hiring is easier. Incident response is more legible. Familiarity sounds boring, but in risk terms, it’s comfort. It’s fewer unknown unknowns.
And then we need to talk about the part people avoid: the risk that concentrates outside the happy path. Bridges and wrapped representations. They’re often necessary, but they compress trust into smaller, sharper points. They become the place where a mistake hurts more. They become the place where an attacker will look first. They also become the place where a perfectly reasonable operational change—an upgrade, a migration, a key rotation—can create a failure no one intended.
This is why I keep coming back to that line: systems don’t fail loudly at first—they drift. Drift is what happens when complexity accumulates faster than discipline. You don’t wake up to “the system is broken.” You wake up to “something feels off.” The worst incidents often start that way.
Plasma’s security framing—Bitcoin-anchored security designed to increase neutrality and censorship resistance—should be read through operations, not ideology. The point isn’t symbolism. The point is reducing the chance that settlement becomes negotiable. Payments cannot run on “it depends.” If the rail can be pressured, captured, or quietly steered, then the system becomes politics. And politics is slow. Politics is unpredictable. Politics is not what you want sitting underneath salaries and merchant payouts.
Then there’s the token, and this is where I prefer to keep the language plain. $XPL is fuel and responsibility. It exists in the system as an incentive mechanism, but the mature way to talk about it is not as a reward machine. It’s as skin in the game. Staking should mean: if you help secure this, you accept consequences if it degrades. You don’t get to treat infrastructure like a casino and still claim you’re building payments rails.
If Plasma is serious, it will earn trust the way serious infrastructure earns trust: slowly. Through boring weeks. Through clean reconciliations. Through fewer escalations. Through audits that don’t produce surprises. Through compliance conversations that don’t feel like a negotiation. Through merchant partners who stop asking “are you sure” and start acting like the system is just there, like electricity.
That’s the ecosystem direction that matters. Stablecoins. Payment rails. Merchant settlement. Institutional usage. Compliance-aware growth that doesn’t pretend regulation is optional. The kind of boring that signals seriousness, not weakness.
Plasma isn’t trying to reinvent money. It’s trying to make money stop feeling experimental. It’s infrastructure that disappears when it works.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
That’s the point where “throughput” stops being an argument and becomes a responsibility.
In crypto, we’re trained to believe the rail should be expressive. Programmable by default. A place where everything can be composed and remixed. It sounds like progress when you’re building in a clean environment with clean assumptions. But real payments aren’t clean. Salaries come with deadlines. Remittances come with emotion. Merchant settlement comes with thin margins and impatient suppliers. Stablecoin usage in high-adoption regions comes with phone batteries at 9%, spotty signal, and a user who doesn’t care what the system is called—only whether it works and whether it stole a day’s wages in fees.
When money shows up for real, the “expressive rail” idea starts to wobble. Not because programmability is evil, but because defaults matter. If the default path is complicated, the default outcome is error. If the system invites creativity at the wrong layer, you end up with incidents that don’t look dramatic in the beginning. They look like drift. A few more retries. A few more stuck transfers. A few more “we’re looking into it” messages from support. Until one day the drift becomes a week you can’t erase.
Both of these statements have to stay true, even if they sound like they conflict.
Money needs to move quietly and cheaply.
Settlement must be final, correct, and boring.
I mean boring as a compliment. Boring like a ledger that matches. Boring like an end-of-day close that doesn’t require heroics. Boring like a payment system that doesn’t make you learn its personality before you can trust it.
Plasma makes more sense when you look at it through that lens. It’s a Layer 1 tailored for stablecoin settlement. Not a general-purpose playground trying to host every kind of experiment. More like a conservative settlement floor designed around the kinds of flows that actually happen: payroll runs, merchant payouts, treasury sweeps, remittance corridors, institutional settlement windows, and the repetitive, unglamorous movement of stable value.
This is why benchmarking throughput responsibly matters. Because the easiest thing in this industry is to claim speed. It’s easy to generate perfect transactions in a lab and measure how many you can cram through when nothing is going wrong. But that’s not a payments benchmark. That’s a performance demo. A responsible benchmark looks like the real week: batching behavior, retries, wallet quirks, network hiccups, partners sending a thousand transfers at once, and support teams trying to explain why a transfer is “pending” without sounding unsure.
In payments ops, the benchmark is not “peak.” The benchmark is “predictable.”
Gasless or stablecoin-paid transactions are a small detail that becomes very human the moment you operate at scale. In most chains, fees are a separate chore. “You want to send money? First go buy a different token so you can pay for the right to send money.” People in crypto accept that like it’s normal. People outside crypto do not. It confuses them. It punishes them. It creates this weird feeling that the system is making you do extra work just to prove you belong there.
And it creates mistakes. People run out of fee token. People buy the wrong one. People send funds to an exchange and then realize they can’t withdraw because they forgot to keep gas. Support gets the ticket. Ops gets the escalation. Treasury gets dragged in because now you’re manually fixing what should have been a routine transfer.
Plasma’s stablecoin-first posture is basically saying: remove the side quests. If the purpose is stablecoin settlement, paying fees should not require a second balance and a second mental model. You can argue about implementation all day, but the intent is straightforward: fewer steps, fewer ways to fail, fewer reasons for a user to feel stupid for trying to move their own money.
Sub-second finality is another thing that gets talked about like it’s a trophy. But if you’ve ever sat through a late-night settlement check, you know speed isn’t the core feeling. Certainty is. The moment you stop watching a transfer and start treating it as done is the moment operations can breathe. Finality that arrives quickly doesn’t just make things faster. It removes limbo. It reduces disputes. It shrinks the window where someone can say, “Wait, is this actually settled?” and force the whole organization to pause.
So when Plasma talks about sub-second finality through PlasmaBFT, the serious framing isn’t “we’re faster.” It’s “we’re easier to operate.” It’s “we reduce the time you spend holding your breath.” In treasury terms, it’s the difference between making decisions off settled truth versus guessing around pending states.
EVM compatibility fits into this the same way. Not as a badge. As continuity. Teams already know the tooling. Auditors already know how to look at Solidity. Engineers have muscle memory. Monitoring stacks exist. Hiring is easier. Incident response is more legible. Familiarity sounds boring, but in risk terms, it’s comfort. It’s fewer unknown unknowns.
And then we need to talk about the part people avoid: the risk that concentrates outside the happy path. Bridges and wrapped representations. They’re often necessary, but they compress trust into smaller, sharper points. They become the place where a mistake hurts more. They become the place where an attacker will look first. They also become the place where a perfectly reasonable operational change—an upgrade, a migration, a key rotation—can create a failure no one intended.
This is why I keep coming back to that line: systems don’t fail loudly at first—they drift. Drift is what happens when complexity accumulates faster than discipline. You don’t wake up to “the system is broken.” You wake up to “something feels off.” The worst incidents often start that way.
Plasma’s security framing—Bitcoin-anchored security designed to increase neutrality and censorship resistance—should be read through operations, not ideology. The point isn’t symbolism. The point is reducing the chance that settlement becomes negotiable. Payments cannot run on “it depends.” If the rail can be pressured, captured, or quietly steered, then the system becomes politics. And politics is slow. Politics is unpredictable. Politics is not what you want sitting underneath salaries and merchant payouts.
Then there’s the token, and this is where I prefer to keep the language plain. $XPL is fuel and responsibility. It exists in the system as an incentive mechanism, but the mature way to talk about it is not as a reward machine. It’s as skin in the game. Staking should mean: if you help secure this, you accept consequences if it degrades. You don’t get to treat infrastructure like a casino and still claim you’re building payments rails.
If Plasma is serious, it will earn trust the way serious infrastructure earns trust: slowly. Through boring weeks. Through clean reconciliations. Through fewer escalations. Through audits that don’t produce surprises. Through compliance conversations that don’t feel like a negotiation. Through merchant partners who stop asking “are you sure” and start acting like the system is just there, like electricity.
That’s the ecosystem direction that matters. Stablecoins. Payment rails. Merchant settlement. Institutional usage. Compliance-aware growth that doesn’t pretend regulation is optional. The kind of boring that signals seriousness, not weakness.
Plasma isn’t trying to reinvent money. It’s trying to make money stop feeling experimental. It’s infrastructure that disappears when it works.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
$ETH / $BTC — Update
Still waiting for deeper pullbacks.
Alts can stay on the sidelines a bit longer before we start looking for long-term entries.
#Write2Earn
Still waiting for deeper pullbacks.
Alts can stay on the sidelines a bit longer before we start looking for long-term entries.
#Write2Earn
Volatility shakes out emotion, not conviction.
Cas Abbé
·
--
The most viable concept of Vanar is change-management of real finance.
Lots of blockchains take pride in their immutability, and they state that it is a virtue in and of itself. As a matter of fact, though, change is not the difficult part of real finance: immutability is. Regulations change every month, risk groups change limits, the regulators change wording and what was okay yesterday may no longer be the case today. Even in one firm, the policies change due to an interchange in markets, change in patterns of fraud or the opening of a new region.
The distinctive angle does not look like the standard-type fast chain rhetoric when I look at Vanar. Vanar views a blockchain as a system that can be changed safely and will not undermine trust. That is what finance requires not flawless code but an upgradeable policy with a testable record.
The inherent issue with smart contracts is that it is too final to the operations of institutions. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have become fond of the notion that a contract cannot be altered, yet the bank-and-mortar institutions do not operate in such a way. Banks are signing policies, which are living rules and constantly updated as the living rules. The conventional smart contracts make one make an agonizing trade-off. Any real-world change needs a redeploy; upgrading is mandatory, and the users are scared of the administration keys and secret modifications. In any case, government is slipshod.
This is why the concept of dynamic contracts is important. It is not of adding features but it is of cost of compliance being less in the long run.
Contracts that are dynamic are framed by Vanar V23 as a library of templates, rather than as a festival of rewrites. V23 presents a dynamic contract-engine which operates with an library of rule-templates and parameter-specification. This allows institutions to modify the rate of pledges, the level of risk and the compliance terms without having to re-deploy the whole contract. It transforms the meaning of upgrade: a brand-new contract is not shipped to one number, but the structure remains intact, and only the approved parameters are transferred. In normal software we differiate between code and config, what is adjustable and what is running. Vanar introduces that discipline to smart contracts. This method can even cut the costs of multi-scenario adaptation (V23 write-up) by approximately 60 percent to tokenize RWA, since you do not need to re-write everything and re-build everything when you need a new rule. What matters more is the direction: consider policy change to be a first-class feature.
The most important thing about this to RWA: the rules that are associated with real-world assets never cease motion. RWA tokenization sounds easy until you enumerate the alterations that occur in practice: a lender adjusts collateral regulations when volatility increases; a jurisdiction alters what qualifies as accredited; a compliance department introduces a provision when an audit occurs; a product expands to a new area and requires new limits. In an ordinary world where contracts are immutable, every of those forms a complex fork. You face an option of redeploying and redeploying or you create a haphazard upgrade system that frightens users. A less-corrupted middle-ground is provided by Vanar in his template + parameter strategy. It considers changes as anticipated, limited and verifiable. The contract is not a rock that is not moving; it is a machine whose dials can be adjusted and everybody is aware of what dials are available.
The real world is being automated through what is known as policy as code. The further idea behind Vanar is that compliance and risk could be manifested as logic. Represent rules as structured parameters and then open up the possibilities that are not possible in a manual operation. A rule change can be rolled out everywhere rather than ten departments. Before application you can simulate with what would happen should we increase this threshold? To customize your product to various regions, you do not need to fork the whole product but create various policy sets. It is the same transition that has allowed software to be measured and repeatable in all other industries, and Vanar seeks to introduce the same shift to on-chain finance.
The missed advantage: the reduced number of redeploys implies the reduced number of attack moments. Each redeploy is a risk instant; each migration brings in bewilderment; each new contract address provides a new avenue of errors, fraudulence, and integration failures. When a protocol is able to modify rules without retracting underlying logic, then it lessens the number of times that the ecosystem goes through such precarious transitions. That does not mitigate risk- it contains it. The scoped changes are parameterized to transform, rather than a new system of contract. This is a big deal to any team building actual financial products. They desire the freedom, yet not anarchy.
Governance is no longer an ambiguous community ritual, but the rule approval layer.
A dynamic system requires some valid method of making decisions on what can be changed.
Vanar has addressed Governance Proposal 2.0 to enable the token holders to make ecosystem decisions, such as the parameters of AI models and other system-level rules.
Although nothing might be live now, at least it is a direction. When the network is interested in serving institutions, it should have the clear story that there are parameters that are altered, by whom, and how that change of parameters is documented.
In the ideal form of that, it is not drama of government. Governance is a book of rules that is signed.
Businesses reason this way: not who screamed, but what was passed, when, and by whom.
An example in point: a lending product that remains constant and rules change.
As an example, consider a lending product that is constructed on-chain.
The code establishes the product logic: the way loans are issued, the way collateral is monitored and the way the repayments occur. That code should be stable.
However, they may be modified: loan-to-value, risk level, acceptable collateral, region limits, and compliance inspections.
When using the template approach, you are able to make changes to the policy parameters and keep the product the same. The user does not need to be transferred to a new contract each time there is change in policy. Auditors will be able to trace the changes and their time. Developers will not need to rebuild integrations on a monthly basis.
This causes on-chain finance to cease as an experiment and more as an infrastructure.
Elements that make me consider this to be the adult account of Vanar.
The majority of crypto stories seek novelty. Vanar pursues in his dynamic-contract framing something more uncommon, operational maturity.
This does not mean that we do not change. It is saying “we change safely.”
That is consistent with the functioning of banks, payment networks and controlled systems. They change constantly, yet they do it in a structured manner in terms of policy changes, flow of approval and audit trails.
By continuing to develop towards this model, Vanar is in a position to market itself as a chain that can accommodate financial products that can last the long run, as opposed to seasons.
Conclusion: the chain that can adapt will continue to live in the chain that only promises.
Individuals tend to mix up immutability and trust in crypto. The belief in real systems is based on effective reliability: predictable behaviour and visible change.
V23 story by Vanar presents a conceptual notion of smart contracts into the real world: dynamic contracts are made up of stable templates and adjustable rules. Such a change would allow RWA and regulated finance to be much more realistic on-chain, as it is closer to the real world of rule development.
Assuming Vanar makes changes confined, approval-based and audits, then it is not merely a chain being built. It is creating a platform on which actual finance is accelerating without going astray.
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar
The distinctive angle does not look like the standard-type fast chain rhetoric when I look at Vanar. Vanar views a blockchain as a system that can be changed safely and will not undermine trust. That is what finance requires not flawless code but an upgradeable policy with a testable record.
The inherent issue with smart contracts is that it is too final to the operations of institutions. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have become fond of the notion that a contract cannot be altered, yet the bank-and-mortar institutions do not operate in such a way. Banks are signing policies, which are living rules and constantly updated as the living rules. The conventional smart contracts make one make an agonizing trade-off. Any real-world change needs a redeploy; upgrading is mandatory, and the users are scared of the administration keys and secret modifications. In any case, government is slipshod.
This is why the concept of dynamic contracts is important. It is not of adding features but it is of cost of compliance being less in the long run.
Contracts that are dynamic are framed by Vanar V23 as a library of templates, rather than as a festival of rewrites. V23 presents a dynamic contract-engine which operates with an library of rule-templates and parameter-specification. This allows institutions to modify the rate of pledges, the level of risk and the compliance terms without having to re-deploy the whole contract. It transforms the meaning of upgrade: a brand-new contract is not shipped to one number, but the structure remains intact, and only the approved parameters are transferred. In normal software we differiate between code and config, what is adjustable and what is running. Vanar introduces that discipline to smart contracts. This method can even cut the costs of multi-scenario adaptation (V23 write-up) by approximately 60 percent to tokenize RWA, since you do not need to re-write everything and re-build everything when you need a new rule. What matters more is the direction: consider policy change to be a first-class feature.
The most important thing about this to RWA: the rules that are associated with real-world assets never cease motion. RWA tokenization sounds easy until you enumerate the alterations that occur in practice: a lender adjusts collateral regulations when volatility increases; a jurisdiction alters what qualifies as accredited; a compliance department introduces a provision when an audit occurs; a product expands to a new area and requires new limits. In an ordinary world where contracts are immutable, every of those forms a complex fork. You face an option of redeploying and redeploying or you create a haphazard upgrade system that frightens users. A less-corrupted middle-ground is provided by Vanar in his template + parameter strategy. It considers changes as anticipated, limited and verifiable. The contract is not a rock that is not moving; it is a machine whose dials can be adjusted and everybody is aware of what dials are available.
The real world is being automated through what is known as policy as code. The further idea behind Vanar is that compliance and risk could be manifested as logic. Represent rules as structured parameters and then open up the possibilities that are not possible in a manual operation. A rule change can be rolled out everywhere rather than ten departments. Before application you can simulate with what would happen should we increase this threshold? To customize your product to various regions, you do not need to fork the whole product but create various policy sets. It is the same transition that has allowed software to be measured and repeatable in all other industries, and Vanar seeks to introduce the same shift to on-chain finance.
The missed advantage: the reduced number of redeploys implies the reduced number of attack moments. Each redeploy is a risk instant; each migration brings in bewilderment; each new contract address provides a new avenue of errors, fraudulence, and integration failures. When a protocol is able to modify rules without retracting underlying logic, then it lessens the number of times that the ecosystem goes through such precarious transitions. That does not mitigate risk- it contains it. The scoped changes are parameterized to transform, rather than a new system of contract. This is a big deal to any team building actual financial products. They desire the freedom, yet not anarchy.
Governance is no longer an ambiguous community ritual, but the rule approval layer.
A dynamic system requires some valid method of making decisions on what can be changed.
Vanar has addressed Governance Proposal 2.0 to enable the token holders to make ecosystem decisions, such as the parameters of AI models and other system-level rules.
Although nothing might be live now, at least it is a direction. When the network is interested in serving institutions, it should have the clear story that there are parameters that are altered, by whom, and how that change of parameters is documented.
In the ideal form of that, it is not drama of government. Governance is a book of rules that is signed.
Businesses reason this way: not who screamed, but what was passed, when, and by whom.
An example in point: a lending product that remains constant and rules change.
As an example, consider a lending product that is constructed on-chain.
The code establishes the product logic: the way loans are issued, the way collateral is monitored and the way the repayments occur. That code should be stable.
However, they may be modified: loan-to-value, risk level, acceptable collateral, region limits, and compliance inspections.
When using the template approach, you are able to make changes to the policy parameters and keep the product the same. The user does not need to be transferred to a new contract each time there is change in policy. Auditors will be able to trace the changes and their time. Developers will not need to rebuild integrations on a monthly basis.
This causes on-chain finance to cease as an experiment and more as an infrastructure.
Elements that make me consider this to be the adult account of Vanar.
The majority of crypto stories seek novelty. Vanar pursues in his dynamic-contract framing something more uncommon, operational maturity.
This does not mean that we do not change. It is saying “we change safely.”
That is consistent with the functioning of banks, payment networks and controlled systems. They change constantly, yet they do it in a structured manner in terms of policy changes, flow of approval and audit trails.
By continuing to develop towards this model, Vanar is in a position to market itself as a chain that can accommodate financial products that can last the long run, as opposed to seasons.
Conclusion: the chain that can adapt will continue to live in the chain that only promises.
Individuals tend to mix up immutability and trust in crypto. The belief in real systems is based on effective reliability: predictable behaviour and visible change.
V23 story by Vanar presents a conceptual notion of smart contracts into the real world: dynamic contracts are made up of stable templates and adjustable rules. Such a change would allow RWA and regulated finance to be much more realistic on-chain, as it is closer to the real world of rule development.
Assuming Vanar makes changes confined, approval-based and audits, then it is not merely a chain being built. It is creating a platform on which actual finance is accelerating without going astray.
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanar
Volatility shakes out emotion, not conviction.
Cas Abbé
·
--
Perp DEXs vs. CEXs: Decentralized Derivatives Are Closing The Gap
Perpetual-swap decentralized exchanges, abbreviated as Perp DEXs, previously appeared to be a niche in crypto. Several years ago, it was necessary to open a perpetual Bitcoin or Ether trade at a centralized exchange (CEX) like Binance, Bybit or OKX. The market was still dominated by those venues, however, in 2025 -26 something different happened. New decentralized derivatives exchanges such as Hyperliquid and Aster grew in a short amount of time. They offer profound liquidity, elevated throughput and liquid-staking collateral and cross-margin. Being a person who had been trading on CEXs since he was young, I was very much observing this transition and was surprised by the speed with which perp DEXs are closing the gap.
The comparison between the action of perp DEXs and CEXs
CEXs play a role of conventional brokers. They provide custody of your crypto, you put your money in, and you trade it on perpetual contracts on order books operated by the exchange. There is low legitimacy to charges and enormous volumes since all traders have a common ledger. The negative is trust, in case the platform is compromised or not able to appropriately handle risk, you may lose money.
Perp DEXs reverse this model. They operate on blockchains and operate on smart contracts to run positions. The traders store their crypto in wallets and interface directly with the protocol. The trading can be on-chain and/or off-chain and can be settled transparently. Users are provided with comparatively high fees and reduced speed in order to ensure transparency and self-custody. This performance gap is being bridged today by the best perp DEXs.
The volumes maturing and open interest.
Overall 24 hours trading volume of all perp DEXs is approximately $19.2billion according to the CoinGecko derivatives dashboard.
That amount is still lower than tens of billions that are traded on CEXs daily but it is substantial enough. Hyperliquid is an Ethereum-based protocol, which is top with approximately $5.3 billion and open interest of $4.7 billion. Aster that supports several chains takes its place with a volume of $3 billion and an open interest of 1.8 billion. GRVT, Lighter and edgeX are other platforms which are rapidly expanding.
Perp DEXs Daily trading volume on major perp DEXs.
The above bar chart indicates that Hyperliquid, Aster and other platforms rank above each other. Although Hyperliquid is the leader, share in Aster has increased at a rapid rate. The competition is healthy since it makes DEXs become innovative.
Open interest in leading perp DEXs.
The total values of the outstanding position are measured by open interest. The open interest of Hyperliquid is bigger than the daily volume with the ratio being approximately 287%. According to the atomic wallet, this ratio is high implying that most traders use Hyperliquid to hedge their long term investments and not speculate in the short term. The ratio of Aster is just approximately 12 percent, which means it is more favored by short-term investors.
CEXs still dominate… for now
Most of the derivative volume is still processed by centralized exchanges with these gains. CEXs have been estimated to constitute about 80 percent of the entire crypto derivatives trading, and DEXs comprise 20 percent or lower. This gap is visualized below.
Why do CEXs still dominate? They provide the lowest liquidity and the best spreads and can cross-margin trades in most markets. The comfortable interface and the possibility of using fiat on -ramps are popular among most professional traders as well. Nevertheless, the question of trust still stands, which the downfall of FTX in the end of 2022 still teaches.
Inventions that can assist DEXs in being caught up.
Perp DEXs have become much better during the last year. Hyperliquid has a rate of more than 200,000 orders per second and has an efficient off-chain order matching to enable near-instant execution. Cross-chain deposits can be made simple by Aster- traders do not have to deposit assets using complex bridges. Professional traders are more likely to use Hyperliquid due to its one block confirmation and stable spreads whereas cross-chain users tend to use Aster.
Cross-margin is currently supported by many DEXs, enabling users to collateralize a number of positions. They also take other forms of collateral such as liquid-staking tokens, which receive staking yield even when they are being used as margin. Such innovations are used to make DEXs competitive to CEXs in terms of capital efficiency. It is depicted in the line chart below that the DEX trading volume is increased since early 2025 to early 2026.
The best of DEXs and CEXs.
As volumes and features are convergent, the user experience is different. DEXs are transparent and self-custodial, and CEXs convenient and liquid. The following is my personal comparison of major features with my experience:
Cross-margin and variety of collateral: DEXs are now able to use cross-margin and accept liquid-staking tokens, leaving CEXs behind.
Liquidity depth: CEXs continue to enjoy a deeper book because of their high number of users and market-maker incentives.
Custody control: DEXs enable you to hold your money in your wallet, removing the custody risk.
Slippage & spreads: CEXs typically have lower slippage particularly on large orders but DEXs are improving rapidly.
KYC: A majority of DEXs do not enforce any know-your-customer checks, whereas large CEXs do.
Closing thoughts
Being a client of both kinds of platforms, I am excited about the emergence of perp DEXs. These figures are not big enough to compare with CEXs, yet they are not insignificant anymore. The most advanced DEXs will support billions of dollars of volume each day with more sophisticated strategies like cross-margin and hedging in 2026. Such innovations as the possibility of liquid-staking tokens on a pledge and a one-block confirmation decrease the performance difference with CEXs. These platforms are worth trying, in case you attach importance to transparency and self-custody. To the extent that it requires high-frequency trading and maximum liquidity, CEXs remain king- however, the boundaries are becoming blurred rapidly, which is an indicator of a well-established, immature market.
The comparison between the action of perp DEXs and CEXs
CEXs play a role of conventional brokers. They provide custody of your crypto, you put your money in, and you trade it on perpetual contracts on order books operated by the exchange. There is low legitimacy to charges and enormous volumes since all traders have a common ledger. The negative is trust, in case the platform is compromised or not able to appropriately handle risk, you may lose money.
Perp DEXs reverse this model. They operate on blockchains and operate on smart contracts to run positions. The traders store their crypto in wallets and interface directly with the protocol. The trading can be on-chain and/or off-chain and can be settled transparently. Users are provided with comparatively high fees and reduced speed in order to ensure transparency and self-custody. This performance gap is being bridged today by the best perp DEXs.
The volumes maturing and open interest.
Overall 24 hours trading volume of all perp DEXs is approximately $19.2billion according to the CoinGecko derivatives dashboard.
That amount is still lower than tens of billions that are traded on CEXs daily but it is substantial enough. Hyperliquid is an Ethereum-based protocol, which is top with approximately $5.3 billion and open interest of $4.7 billion. Aster that supports several chains takes its place with a volume of $3 billion and an open interest of 1.8 billion. GRVT, Lighter and edgeX are other platforms which are rapidly expanding.
Perp DEXs Daily trading volume on major perp DEXs.
The above bar chart indicates that Hyperliquid, Aster and other platforms rank above each other. Although Hyperliquid is the leader, share in Aster has increased at a rapid rate. The competition is healthy since it makes DEXs become innovative.
Open interest in leading perp DEXs.
The total values of the outstanding position are measured by open interest. The open interest of Hyperliquid is bigger than the daily volume with the ratio being approximately 287%. According to the atomic wallet, this ratio is high implying that most traders use Hyperliquid to hedge their long term investments and not speculate in the short term. The ratio of Aster is just approximately 12 percent, which means it is more favored by short-term investors.
CEXs still dominate… for now
Most of the derivative volume is still processed by centralized exchanges with these gains. CEXs have been estimated to constitute about 80 percent of the entire crypto derivatives trading, and DEXs comprise 20 percent or lower. This gap is visualized below.
Why do CEXs still dominate? They provide the lowest liquidity and the best spreads and can cross-margin trades in most markets. The comfortable interface and the possibility of using fiat on -ramps are popular among most professional traders as well. Nevertheless, the question of trust still stands, which the downfall of FTX in the end of 2022 still teaches.
Inventions that can assist DEXs in being caught up.
Perp DEXs have become much better during the last year. Hyperliquid has a rate of more than 200,000 orders per second and has an efficient off-chain order matching to enable near-instant execution. Cross-chain deposits can be made simple by Aster- traders do not have to deposit assets using complex bridges. Professional traders are more likely to use Hyperliquid due to its one block confirmation and stable spreads whereas cross-chain users tend to use Aster.
Cross-margin is currently supported by many DEXs, enabling users to collateralize a number of positions. They also take other forms of collateral such as liquid-staking tokens, which receive staking yield even when they are being used as margin. Such innovations are used to make DEXs competitive to CEXs in terms of capital efficiency. It is depicted in the line chart below that the DEX trading volume is increased since early 2025 to early 2026.
The best of DEXs and CEXs.
As volumes and features are convergent, the user experience is different. DEXs are transparent and self-custodial, and CEXs convenient and liquid. The following is my personal comparison of major features with my experience:
Cross-margin and variety of collateral: DEXs are now able to use cross-margin and accept liquid-staking tokens, leaving CEXs behind.
Liquidity depth: CEXs continue to enjoy a deeper book because of their high number of users and market-maker incentives.
Custody control: DEXs enable you to hold your money in your wallet, removing the custody risk.
Slippage & spreads: CEXs typically have lower slippage particularly on large orders but DEXs are improving rapidly.
KYC: A majority of DEXs do not enforce any know-your-customer checks, whereas large CEXs do.
Closing thoughts
Being a client of both kinds of platforms, I am excited about the emergence of perp DEXs. These figures are not big enough to compare with CEXs, yet they are not insignificant anymore. The most advanced DEXs will support billions of dollars of volume each day with more sophisticated strategies like cross-margin and hedging in 2026. Such innovations as the possibility of liquid-staking tokens on a pledge and a one-block confirmation decrease the performance difference with CEXs. These platforms are worth trying, in case you attach importance to transparency and self-custody. To the extent that it requires high-frequency trading and maximum liquidity, CEXs remain king- however, the boundaries are becoming blurred rapidly, which is an indicator of a well-established, immature market.
Price moves fast. Structure moves slow. That’s the signal.
Cas Abbé
·
--
Plasma’s payments breakthrough is solving the part nobody likes to talk about: refunds
The concept of stablecoins is very effective, but that generates a reputation issue: transactions are immediate and irreversible. Merchants are fond of it since it removes chargebacks, yet common consumers also ask themselves: what happens in case something goes wrong?
In the case of card payments, individuals are interested in protection, and not settlement. They are aware that they can challenge an account and that a bank can undo the charge, and that there is customer service services, even though it is usually slow or annoying.
Stablecoins eliminate that intermediary, and therefore, nobody to compel the turnaround. What comes out is the low cost clean transactions and also the disappearance of the familiar undo button many users have become used to.
Thus, it is not speed or fees but trust that is the key obstacle to the adoption of stablecoins. The typical factor of trust in payment systems is simply the issue of refunds.
The hypothesis: the stablecoins will become mainstream when final payments do not feel unfair.
In case the everyday money is to be substituted with stablecoins, users must get the daily safeguards that they are used to. This does not imply the duplication of chargebacks. Chargebacks are clunky, contribute to fraud, harm merchants, foster abuse, and accrue billions of fees and operation inconvenience.
However, not paying attention to the problem of refund is no longer an option either. When the payment of the stablecoins cannot be refunded regardless, many consumers will never be comfortable to use the coins to make real purchases.
The chance is to create a system in which deals are done but reasonably, without returning to the nightmare of chargebacks.
Plasma is applicable since it is constructed on the foundations of stablecoins, thus it inherently pays attention to consumer-grade payment behaviour - not simply the movements of money but also what comes after it.
The reason why chargebacks are the nightmare of the merchant and the safety net of a consumer.
It is important to consider both substances in order to comprehend the effect.
To consumers, the chargebacks give them a feeling of safety. On a situation where an item is not delivered they are able to argue with it and the bank may take back the payment. It is not perfect, but it makes one feel safe again.
In the case of merchants however, chargebacks are usually a source of chaos. They generate unforeseen losses, may be misused, tie up money, make merchants demonstrate their innocence, introduce additional charges, and even result in the extension of a ban on the account in case of too many disagreements.
This will appeal to merchants to use stablecoins. A reversal cannot be forced by any outside body with regard to stablecoin payments. That eliminates a substantial source of fraud, minimizes the uncertainty, and allows merchants to operate in a less corrupt manner upon settlement.
But finality is in itself not enough. In case the consumers do not have a sense of protection, they will be reluctant to pay.
The most effective value proposition that plasma can make to merchants and consumers is that stablecoins are not final, but they can be final without being unfair.
The difference between refunds and chargebacks lies in the difference between the two.
A chargeback is an involuntary reversal that is initiated by a bank and a refund is an involuntary correction that is initiated by the merchant. That distinction matters.
Refunds when properly organized, keep merchants under control. To the consumer, refunds will be optimum where they are transparent, quick, and legal.
The Stablecoin payments are inherently compatible with the refund model. The missing element is a refund logic that can be easily provided by merchants and easily consumed by the consumer.
Here programmable money ceases to be a buzz word and becomes a tool. Each payment in a stablecoin may include so-called rules in the funds, specifying the refund timeframes, partial refunds, cancelation processes, and dispute routes.
This is not a science fiction concept, but a real-world method to use stablecoin payments as something normal in common business.
The actual design problem: How to put protections on without a new bank middle man?
When you introduce refund guarantees through payment reversals to a centralized company, you are more or less re-creating the old system. The user can be safe, but you have forfeited the benefit of stablecoins in the first place, which is neutral settlement.
The design dilemma would therefore be to introduce protective measures without becoming custodial and transparent.
A sound stablecoin payment system can provide such things as:
- A limited escrow period, during which the money is kept in lock and only when the goods have been delivered it is released automatically.
- A refund facility that is merchant controlled and is simple to activate and produces a clear records.
- Refund policies based on time were incorporated into payment system hence the buyer is fully aware of the rules prior to paying.
- Conflict resolution based on express agreement and not reversals of contests in the last minute.
These trends allow the buyer to feel safe without allowing one side to have unlimited authority.
This is the major point: stablecoins do not have to have chargebacks. They are in need of contemporary refund design.
The angle of plasma: a stablecoin business made to feel like an adult.
The public education of plasma on stablecoin chargebacks is important than it appears. When a network makes it clear that stablecoin payments lack the traditional chargebacks, it makes the right expectations. Misplaced expectations destroy trust. When individuals think that they have chargebacks and later find out that they do not, they get deceived.
But Plasma also foreshadows the next stop stablecoin payments can enable flexible refund functionality which can be used in a clean way by merchants. How mainstream retail applications can be unlocked without bringing the worst of card disputes in-house.
Here the wider design options of Plasma also come into play. A network centered around stablecoin-first flows simplifies developing wallet and merchant workflows centered on norms of stablecoins: immediate settlement, transparent history and basic post-payment operations such as refunds.
The next secure currency transaction application is not send USDT and hope. It is pay, keep track, refund, as any payment system presently.
Why refund design is also a compliance win also.
Customer experience is not the only thing about refunds. They also help compliance.
Transaction audit is easier where there are clear refund trails. When one of the customers is refunded, a clean record is made. In case a payment is challenged and adjudicated, it will be a clean record. That reduces ambiguity.
Uncertainties are what regulators despise. It is also the hate of finance teams. Properly designed refund procedures generate formal records, which simplify presentations by merchants, platforms, and payment providers of what transpired.
In stablecoin business, structured records can be the distinction between a rail that is adopted and a rail that is a niche.
So they are not a nice feature, refunds. They belong to the construction of a payment rail that the businesses can rely on.
The reason this is important most to e-commerce and services, and not crypto-native users.
You may not be preoccupied with refunds when you simply consider the crypto users. Several users of crypto have treated transfers as cash. However, stablecoin payments are not only used by crypto users, but they are used in everyday business.
E‑commerce needs refunds. Services need refunds. Travel needs refunds. Businesses that are subscription-centered require refunds. Marketplaces need refunds. Restaurants need refunds. The simplest retail system must be able to undo a transaction at will in a clean manner.
Should one of the stablecoins wish to go that world, they must have fast, transparent, and simple to implement refund logic.
This is why I consider the refund layer to be one of the largest silent unlocks to adopt stablecoins. It is not a social media trend, but it alters the behavior of buyers.
How successful Plasma can be in this refund-first story
When Plasma inclines towards this rightly, victory will be in readable payments of coin like cash in real life.
A customer will make a payment using stablecoins and receive a transparent receipt.
One gesture can enable a merchant to issue a refund and the customer can see it immediately.
The policy of refunds is not concealed somewhere in a help center at the time of purchase.
Disputes don’t become chaos. They get organized streams of which both parties are aware.
Merchants are no longer afraid of chargeback fraud, and consumers are no longer afraid of having no protection.
That is the happy medium: amicable final settlement.
The great point: when stablecoin payments cease to act like transfers and begin to act like commerce, they gain.
The last transition is an attitude change.
A transfer consists of nothing more than money moving.
Commerce is money in transit with anticipations: delivery, service, guarantees and reversals in case of failures.
The most promising opportunity of plasma is to ensure that stablecoin payments move past the category of fast transfer, to actually becoming commerce rails. Refunds are not a side topic. Refunds are the bridge.
And in case Plasma is able to clean and decipher that bridge, it will not be another stablecoin chain. It will be a part of the moment when stablecoins will be finally indeed usable money that can be used in the daily life.
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
In the case of card payments, individuals are interested in protection, and not settlement. They are aware that they can challenge an account and that a bank can undo the charge, and that there is customer service services, even though it is usually slow or annoying.
Stablecoins eliminate that intermediary, and therefore, nobody to compel the turnaround. What comes out is the low cost clean transactions and also the disappearance of the familiar undo button many users have become used to.
Thus, it is not speed or fees but trust that is the key obstacle to the adoption of stablecoins. The typical factor of trust in payment systems is simply the issue of refunds.
The hypothesis: the stablecoins will become mainstream when final payments do not feel unfair.
In case the everyday money is to be substituted with stablecoins, users must get the daily safeguards that they are used to. This does not imply the duplication of chargebacks. Chargebacks are clunky, contribute to fraud, harm merchants, foster abuse, and accrue billions of fees and operation inconvenience.
However, not paying attention to the problem of refund is no longer an option either. When the payment of the stablecoins cannot be refunded regardless, many consumers will never be comfortable to use the coins to make real purchases.
The chance is to create a system in which deals are done but reasonably, without returning to the nightmare of chargebacks.
Plasma is applicable since it is constructed on the foundations of stablecoins, thus it inherently pays attention to consumer-grade payment behaviour - not simply the movements of money but also what comes after it.
The reason why chargebacks are the nightmare of the merchant and the safety net of a consumer.
It is important to consider both substances in order to comprehend the effect.
To consumers, the chargebacks give them a feeling of safety. On a situation where an item is not delivered they are able to argue with it and the bank may take back the payment. It is not perfect, but it makes one feel safe again.
In the case of merchants however, chargebacks are usually a source of chaos. They generate unforeseen losses, may be misused, tie up money, make merchants demonstrate their innocence, introduce additional charges, and even result in the extension of a ban on the account in case of too many disagreements.
This will appeal to merchants to use stablecoins. A reversal cannot be forced by any outside body with regard to stablecoin payments. That eliminates a substantial source of fraud, minimizes the uncertainty, and allows merchants to operate in a less corrupt manner upon settlement.
But finality is in itself not enough. In case the consumers do not have a sense of protection, they will be reluctant to pay.
The most effective value proposition that plasma can make to merchants and consumers is that stablecoins are not final, but they can be final without being unfair.
The difference between refunds and chargebacks lies in the difference between the two.
A chargeback is an involuntary reversal that is initiated by a bank and a refund is an involuntary correction that is initiated by the merchant. That distinction matters.
Refunds when properly organized, keep merchants under control. To the consumer, refunds will be optimum where they are transparent, quick, and legal.
The Stablecoin payments are inherently compatible with the refund model. The missing element is a refund logic that can be easily provided by merchants and easily consumed by the consumer.
Here programmable money ceases to be a buzz word and becomes a tool. Each payment in a stablecoin may include so-called rules in the funds, specifying the refund timeframes, partial refunds, cancelation processes, and dispute routes.
This is not a science fiction concept, but a real-world method to use stablecoin payments as something normal in common business.
The actual design problem: How to put protections on without a new bank middle man?
When you introduce refund guarantees through payment reversals to a centralized company, you are more or less re-creating the old system. The user can be safe, but you have forfeited the benefit of stablecoins in the first place, which is neutral settlement.
The design dilemma would therefore be to introduce protective measures without becoming custodial and transparent.
A sound stablecoin payment system can provide such things as:
- A limited escrow period, during which the money is kept in lock and only when the goods have been delivered it is released automatically.
- A refund facility that is merchant controlled and is simple to activate and produces a clear records.
- Refund policies based on time were incorporated into payment system hence the buyer is fully aware of the rules prior to paying.
- Conflict resolution based on express agreement and not reversals of contests in the last minute.
These trends allow the buyer to feel safe without allowing one side to have unlimited authority.
This is the major point: stablecoins do not have to have chargebacks. They are in need of contemporary refund design.
The angle of plasma: a stablecoin business made to feel like an adult.
The public education of plasma on stablecoin chargebacks is important than it appears. When a network makes it clear that stablecoin payments lack the traditional chargebacks, it makes the right expectations. Misplaced expectations destroy trust. When individuals think that they have chargebacks and later find out that they do not, they get deceived.
But Plasma also foreshadows the next stop stablecoin payments can enable flexible refund functionality which can be used in a clean way by merchants. How mainstream retail applications can be unlocked without bringing the worst of card disputes in-house.
Here the wider design options of Plasma also come into play. A network centered around stablecoin-first flows simplifies developing wallet and merchant workflows centered on norms of stablecoins: immediate settlement, transparent history and basic post-payment operations such as refunds.
The next secure currency transaction application is not send USDT and hope. It is pay, keep track, refund, as any payment system presently.
Why refund design is also a compliance win also.
Customer experience is not the only thing about refunds. They also help compliance.
Transaction audit is easier where there are clear refund trails. When one of the customers is refunded, a clean record is made. In case a payment is challenged and adjudicated, it will be a clean record. That reduces ambiguity.
Uncertainties are what regulators despise. It is also the hate of finance teams. Properly designed refund procedures generate formal records, which simplify presentations by merchants, platforms, and payment providers of what transpired.
In stablecoin business, structured records can be the distinction between a rail that is adopted and a rail that is a niche.
So they are not a nice feature, refunds. They belong to the construction of a payment rail that the businesses can rely on.
The reason this is important most to e-commerce and services, and not crypto-native users.
You may not be preoccupied with refunds when you simply consider the crypto users. Several users of crypto have treated transfers as cash. However, stablecoin payments are not only used by crypto users, but they are used in everyday business.
E‑commerce needs refunds. Services need refunds. Travel needs refunds. Businesses that are subscription-centered require refunds. Marketplaces need refunds. Restaurants need refunds. The simplest retail system must be able to undo a transaction at will in a clean manner.
Should one of the stablecoins wish to go that world, they must have fast, transparent, and simple to implement refund logic.
This is why I consider the refund layer to be one of the largest silent unlocks to adopt stablecoins. It is not a social media trend, but it alters the behavior of buyers.
How successful Plasma can be in this refund-first story
When Plasma inclines towards this rightly, victory will be in readable payments of coin like cash in real life.
A customer will make a payment using stablecoins and receive a transparent receipt.
One gesture can enable a merchant to issue a refund and the customer can see it immediately.
The policy of refunds is not concealed somewhere in a help center at the time of purchase.
Disputes don’t become chaos. They get organized streams of which both parties are aware.
Merchants are no longer afraid of chargeback fraud, and consumers are no longer afraid of having no protection.
That is the happy medium: amicable final settlement.
The great point: when stablecoin payments cease to act like transfers and begin to act like commerce, they gain.
The last transition is an attitude change.
A transfer consists of nothing more than money moving.
Commerce is money in transit with anticipations: delivery, service, guarantees and reversals in case of failures.
The most promising opportunity of plasma is to ensure that stablecoin payments move past the category of fast transfer, to actually becoming commerce rails. Refunds are not a side topic. Refunds are the bridge.
And in case Plasma is able to clean and decipher that bridge, it will not be another stablecoin chain. It will be a part of the moment when stablecoins will be finally indeed usable money that can be used in the daily life.
#plasma $XPL @Plasma
Most people leave during boredom, not fear.
Cas Abbé
·
--
Perp DEXs vs. CEXs: Decentralized Derivatives Are Closing The Gap
Perpetual-swap decentralized exchanges, abbreviated as Perp DEXs, previously appeared to be a niche in crypto. Several years ago, it was necessary to open a perpetual Bitcoin or Ether trade at a centralized exchange (CEX) like Binance, Bybit or OKX. The market was still dominated by those venues, however, in 2025 -26 something different happened. New decentralized derivatives exchanges such as Hyperliquid and Aster grew in a short amount of time. They offer profound liquidity, elevated throughput and liquid-staking collateral and cross-margin. Being a person who had been trading on CEXs since he was young, I was very much observing this transition and was surprised by the speed with which perp DEXs are closing the gap.
The comparison between the action of perp DEXs and CEXs
CEXs play a role of conventional brokers. They provide custody of your crypto, you put your money in, and you trade it on perpetual contracts on order books operated by the exchange. There is low legitimacy to charges and enormous volumes since all traders have a common ledger. The negative is trust, in case the platform is compromised or not able to appropriately handle risk, you may lose money.
Perp DEXs reverse this model. They operate on blockchains and operate on smart contracts to run positions. The traders store their crypto in wallets and interface directly with the protocol. The trading can be on-chain and/or off-chain and can be settled transparently. Users are provided with comparatively high fees and reduced speed in order to ensure transparency and self-custody. This performance gap is being bridged today by the best perp DEXs.
The volumes maturing and open interest.
Overall 24 hours trading volume of all perp DEXs is approximately $19.2billion according to the CoinGecko derivatives dashboard.
That amount is still lower than tens of billions that are traded on CEXs daily but it is substantial enough. Hyperliquid is an Ethereum-based protocol, which is top with approximately $5.3 billion and open interest of $4.7 billion. Aster that supports several chains takes its place with a volume of $3 billion and an open interest of 1.8 billion. GRVT, Lighter and edgeX are other platforms which are rapidly expanding.
Perp DEXs Daily trading volume on major perp DEXs.
The above bar chart indicates that Hyperliquid, Aster and other platforms rank above each other. Although Hyperliquid is the leader, share in Aster has increased at a rapid rate. The competition is healthy since it makes DEXs become innovative.
Open interest in leading perp DEXs.
The total values of the outstanding position are measured by open interest. The open interest of Hyperliquid is bigger than the daily volume with the ratio being approximately 287%. According to the atomic wallet, this ratio is high implying that most traders use Hyperliquid to hedge their long term investments and not speculate in the short term. The ratio of Aster is just approximately 12 percent, which means it is more favored by short-term investors.
CEXs still dominate… for now
Most of the derivative volume is still processed by centralized exchanges with these gains. CEXs have been estimated to constitute about 80 percent of the entire crypto derivatives trading, and DEXs comprise 20 percent or lower. This gap is visualized below.
Why do CEXs still dominate? They provide the lowest liquidity and the best spreads and can cross-margin trades in most markets. The comfortable interface and the possibility of using fiat on -ramps are popular among most professional traders as well. Nevertheless, the question of trust still stands, which the downfall of FTX in the end of 2022 still teaches.
Inventions that can assist DEXs in being caught up.
Perp DEXs have become much better during the last year. Hyperliquid has a rate of more than 200,000 orders per second and has an efficient off-chain order matching to enable near-instant execution. Cross-chain deposits can be made simple by Aster- traders do not have to deposit assets using complex bridges. Professional traders are more likely to use Hyperliquid due to its one block confirmation and stable spreads whereas cross-chain users tend to use Aster.
Cross-margin is currently supported by many DEXs, enabling users to collateralize a number of positions. They also take other forms of collateral such as liquid-staking tokens, which receive staking yield even when they are being used as margin. Such innovations are used to make DEXs competitive to CEXs in terms of capital efficiency. It is depicted in the line chart below that the DEX trading volume is increased since early 2025 to early 2026.
The best of DEXs and CEXs.
As volumes and features are convergent, the user experience is different. DEXs are transparent and self-custodial, and CEXs convenient and liquid. The following is my personal comparison of major features with my experience:
Cross-margin and variety of collateral: DEXs are now able to use cross-margin and accept liquid-staking tokens, leaving CEXs behind.
Liquidity depth: CEXs continue to enjoy a deeper book because of their high number of users and market-maker incentives.
Custody control: DEXs enable you to hold your money in your wallet, removing the custody risk.
Slippage & spreads: CEXs typically have lower slippage particularly on large orders but DEXs are improving rapidly.
KYC: A majority of DEXs do not enforce any know-your-customer checks, whereas large CEXs do.
Closing thoughts
Being a client of both kinds of platforms, I am excited about the emergence of perp DEXs. These figures are not big enough to compare with CEXs, yet they are not insignificant anymore. The most advanced DEXs will support billions of dollars of volume each day with more sophisticated strategies like cross-margin and hedging in 2026. Such innovations as the possibility of liquid-staking tokens on a pledge and a one-block confirmation decrease the performance difference with CEXs. These platforms are worth trying, in case you attach importance to transparency and self-custody. To the extent that it requires high-frequency trading and maximum liquidity, CEXs remain king- however, the boundaries are becoming blurred rapidly, which is an indicator of a well-established, immature market.
The comparison between the action of perp DEXs and CEXs
CEXs play a role of conventional brokers. They provide custody of your crypto, you put your money in, and you trade it on perpetual contracts on order books operated by the exchange. There is low legitimacy to charges and enormous volumes since all traders have a common ledger. The negative is trust, in case the platform is compromised or not able to appropriately handle risk, you may lose money.
Perp DEXs reverse this model. They operate on blockchains and operate on smart contracts to run positions. The traders store their crypto in wallets and interface directly with the protocol. The trading can be on-chain and/or off-chain and can be settled transparently. Users are provided with comparatively high fees and reduced speed in order to ensure transparency and self-custody. This performance gap is being bridged today by the best perp DEXs.
The volumes maturing and open interest.
Overall 24 hours trading volume of all perp DEXs is approximately $19.2billion according to the CoinGecko derivatives dashboard.
That amount is still lower than tens of billions that are traded on CEXs daily but it is substantial enough. Hyperliquid is an Ethereum-based protocol, which is top with approximately $5.3 billion and open interest of $4.7 billion. Aster that supports several chains takes its place with a volume of $3 billion and an open interest of 1.8 billion. GRVT, Lighter and edgeX are other platforms which are rapidly expanding.
Perp DEXs Daily trading volume on major perp DEXs.
The above bar chart indicates that Hyperliquid, Aster and other platforms rank above each other. Although Hyperliquid is the leader, share in Aster has increased at a rapid rate. The competition is healthy since it makes DEXs become innovative.
Open interest in leading perp DEXs.
The total values of the outstanding position are measured by open interest. The open interest of Hyperliquid is bigger than the daily volume with the ratio being approximately 287%. According to the atomic wallet, this ratio is high implying that most traders use Hyperliquid to hedge their long term investments and not speculate in the short term. The ratio of Aster is just approximately 12 percent, which means it is more favored by short-term investors.
CEXs still dominate… for now
Most of the derivative volume is still processed by centralized exchanges with these gains. CEXs have been estimated to constitute about 80 percent of the entire crypto derivatives trading, and DEXs comprise 20 percent or lower. This gap is visualized below.
Why do CEXs still dominate? They provide the lowest liquidity and the best spreads and can cross-margin trades in most markets. The comfortable interface and the possibility of using fiat on -ramps are popular among most professional traders as well. Nevertheless, the question of trust still stands, which the downfall of FTX in the end of 2022 still teaches.
Inventions that can assist DEXs in being caught up.
Perp DEXs have become much better during the last year. Hyperliquid has a rate of more than 200,000 orders per second and has an efficient off-chain order matching to enable near-instant execution. Cross-chain deposits can be made simple by Aster- traders do not have to deposit assets using complex bridges. Professional traders are more likely to use Hyperliquid due to its one block confirmation and stable spreads whereas cross-chain users tend to use Aster.
Cross-margin is currently supported by many DEXs, enabling users to collateralize a number of positions. They also take other forms of collateral such as liquid-staking tokens, which receive staking yield even when they are being used as margin. Such innovations are used to make DEXs competitive to CEXs in terms of capital efficiency. It is depicted in the line chart below that the DEX trading volume is increased since early 2025 to early 2026.
The best of DEXs and CEXs.
As volumes and features are convergent, the user experience is different. DEXs are transparent and self-custodial, and CEXs convenient and liquid. The following is my personal comparison of major features with my experience:
Cross-margin and variety of collateral: DEXs are now able to use cross-margin and accept liquid-staking tokens, leaving CEXs behind.
Liquidity depth: CEXs continue to enjoy a deeper book because of their high number of users and market-maker incentives.
Custody control: DEXs enable you to hold your money in your wallet, removing the custody risk.
Slippage & spreads: CEXs typically have lower slippage particularly on large orders but DEXs are improving rapidly.
KYC: A majority of DEXs do not enforce any know-your-customer checks, whereas large CEXs do.
Closing thoughts
Being a client of both kinds of platforms, I am excited about the emergence of perp DEXs. These figures are not big enough to compare with CEXs, yet they are not insignificant anymore. The most advanced DEXs will support billions of dollars of volume each day with more sophisticated strategies like cross-margin and hedging in 2026. Such innovations as the possibility of liquid-staking tokens on a pledge and a one-block confirmation decrease the performance difference with CEXs. These platforms are worth trying, in case you attach importance to transparency and self-custody. To the extent that it requires high-frequency trading and maximum liquidity, CEXs remain king- however, the boundaries are becoming blurred rapidly, which is an indicator of a well-established, immature market.
Price moves fast. Structure moves slow. That’s the signal.
Buy_SomeBTC
·
--
Plasma is focused on building payment infrastructure that actually works. The goal is simple. Fast transactions, low fees, and a network that can handle real usage. Plasma is designed for everyday payments and applications that need speed and reliability, not hype.
XPL supports the system behind the scenes, helping secure the network and power real activity like payments, DeFi use, and business level applications. Plasma is about utility first and steady growth, not noise.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
XPL supports the system behind the scenes, helping secure the network and power real activity like payments, DeFi use, and business level applications. Plasma is about utility first and steady growth, not noise.
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
Markets usually move when patience runs out, not when noise is loud.
Buy_SomeBTC
·
--
Plasma Explained the Way Serious Builders Think About It
What problem is Plasma actually trying to solve
Speed and reliability. Most blockchains slow down, get expensive, or behave unpredictably when real users show up. Plasma is built to handle apps that need instant responses and steady performance, not just demos.
Why does speed matter this much now
Because users are no longer patient. In DeFi, games, trading, or AI apps, delays kill the experience. If an app feels slow, people leave. Plasma is built so transactions feel immediate and fees stay calm even when activity increases.
What makes Plasma different from older chains
Focus. Plasma does not try to be everything. It concentrates on execution. It processes many transactions at the same time when possible instead of forcing everything through a single line. That keeps confirmations fast and costs predictable.
Is this speed coming at the cost of security
No. Plasma’s speed comes from architecture, not shortcuts. It is designed to fit into a modular setup where execution stays fast while security and other layers remain strong. Performance is intentional, not risky.
Why should developers care
Because Plasma feels practical. Familiar tools, clear behavior, and stable execution make it easier to build apps that actually work under load. Less time fighting the network, more time building products.
What does this mean for users
Smoother apps. Faster actions. Fewer failed transactions. No surprise fee spikes. The kind of experience people expect from modern software.
What is Plasma really aiming to become
Not the loudest chain. Not the most hyped one. Plasma wants to be the engine behind real time blockchain apps. The kind of infrastructure people rely on without thinking about it.
That is usually where real adoption happens.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
Speed and reliability. Most blockchains slow down, get expensive, or behave unpredictably when real users show up. Plasma is built to handle apps that need instant responses and steady performance, not just demos.
Why does speed matter this much now
Because users are no longer patient. In DeFi, games, trading, or AI apps, delays kill the experience. If an app feels slow, people leave. Plasma is built so transactions feel immediate and fees stay calm even when activity increases.
What makes Plasma different from older chains
Focus. Plasma does not try to be everything. It concentrates on execution. It processes many transactions at the same time when possible instead of forcing everything through a single line. That keeps confirmations fast and costs predictable.
Is this speed coming at the cost of security
No. Plasma’s speed comes from architecture, not shortcuts. It is designed to fit into a modular setup where execution stays fast while security and other layers remain strong. Performance is intentional, not risky.
Why should developers care
Because Plasma feels practical. Familiar tools, clear behavior, and stable execution make it easier to build apps that actually work under load. Less time fighting the network, more time building products.
What does this mean for users
Smoother apps. Faster actions. Fewer failed transactions. No surprise fee spikes. The kind of experience people expect from modern software.
What is Plasma really aiming to become
Not the loudest chain. Not the most hyped one. Plasma wants to be the engine behind real time blockchain apps. The kind of infrastructure people rely on without thinking about it.
That is usually where real adoption happens.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
Markets don’t reward noise. They reward positioning.
Cas Abbé
·
--
Wanchain already lives in interoperability
7+ years running
Zero bridge exploits
Nearly 50 chains connected
$1.6B+ moved cross-chain, with $1–2M flowing daily
No wrapped asset stress. You move value once Wanchain routes it.
$WAN
7+ years running
Zero bridge exploits
Nearly 50 chains connected
$1.6B+ moved cross-chain, with $1–2M flowing daily
No wrapped asset stress. You move value once Wanchain routes it.
$WAN
on fire
Buy_SomeBTC
·
--
Plasma is built around a simple idea. Stablecoins should feel like real money when you use them.
That means fast settlement, clear costs, and no extra steps. Plasma focuses on USDT payments with quick finality and a smooth, gas free experience for users. The network is already live, producing one second blocks and processing real transactions, not demos.
XPL works quietly in the background to secure the system, while users just send and receive value without friction. Plasma is not trying to impress. It is building payment rails that work the way people expect money to work.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
That means fast settlement, clear costs, and no extra steps. Plasma focuses on USDT payments with quick finality and a smooth, gas free experience for users. The network is already live, producing one second blocks and processing real transactions, not demos.
XPL works quietly in the background to secure the system, while users just send and receive value without friction. Plasma is not trying to impress. It is building payment rails that work the way people expect money to work.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
This is where patience gets tested the most.
Z Y N T R A
·
--
DUSK Foundation and the Rise of DUSK Network: A Friendly Look at What’s Happening Now
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Hey everyone! Let’s take a deep dive into what’s been going on with DUSK (that’s the Dusk Foundation and the DUSK Network) lately. I want to talk to you like a friend sharing updates with the community so expect a casual breakdown of hard facts, real developments, and what it all means for the future. No hype, no repetition, just fresh insights based on recent happenings across the ecosystem.
What DUSK Has Been Building
If you’ve been around the project for a while, you know DUSK started with a big promise: combine privacy with real world utility. That idea has always sounded amazing, but until this past year it was mostly theoretical. Everything changed when the mainnet finally went live after years of development. This wasn’t just a checklist achievement it marked a shift from concept to functioning infrastructure that anyone can use, build on, and participate in.
Unlike some blockchains that focus on flashy DeFi rewards or meme coin communities, DUSK has stuck to its roots: real world asset tokenization, privacy for financial use cases, and compliance with existing regulations. And now those roots are showing real growth.
Mainnet and Core Capabilities
What’s most exciting is that the mainnet launch actually delivered on some of the core promises:
Privacy by Design: Every transaction on DUSK can be engineered to protect sensitive data using zero knowledge cryptography. This means you can prove a transaction is valid without revealing the details to everyone on the network. That’s powerful for anything financial, especially when institutions are watching for compliance.
Real World Asset Tokenization Ready: Tokenizing real world assets like bonds, stocks, or private company equity has been talked about for years in crypto. DUSK now has the plumbing to actually do this in a privacy aware way. Institutional partners can bring regulated assets on-chain and let them trade or settle in a blockchain environment.
Staking and Network Participation: The network doesn’t just run itself. DUSK holders can stake their tokens to secure the network and earn rewards. New mechanisms like liquid staking and hyperstaking give more flexibility than older blockchains ever offered.
All of these capabilities give DUSK something very few projects can claim: a real infrastructure play that bridges traditional finance and Web3.
Growing Institutional Interest
Let’s talk about one of the biggest shifts in the last few months: institutions are starting to pay attention in a meaningful way.
Partnerships That Matter
We’ve seen integrations and collaborations with players that are not just “crypto exchanges” but regulated financial institutions like the Dutch exchange NPEX. This kind of partnership is huge because it shows DUSK isn’t building in a vacuum. It’s building for systems that already exist in traditional finance.
Another key development is working with Chainlink technology to bring real world financial data on-chain and support cross-chain communication. By teaming up with Chainlink, DUSK can reliably use external price feeds and move tokenized assets between different blockchains while maintaining privacy and compliance. That’s no small feat.
These partnerships are not just press releases. They signal that regulated entities the types of groups that actually handle large sums of money are at least exploring how DUSK fits into their operations.
A Network You Can Build On
Okay let’s switch gears from partnerships to tech that developers and builders actually care about.
DuskEVM
One of the newer pieces in the ecosystem is something called DuskEVM. Essentially, this gives developers familiar with the Ethereum environment the ability to write and deploy smart contracts on DUSK using tools they already know. That removes a massive barrier to entry.
This is important because it means the ecosystem doesn’t have to rely solely on niche tooling. You get the privacy and compliance benefits of DUSK without sacrificing developer comfort or access to existing code libraries.
Developer Tooling
The team has also been hard at work improving the developer experience around the network with tools like SDKs and other infrastructure. These make it easier to build wallets, dApps, and services that interact with DUSK without reinventing the wheel.
While these kinds of updates don’t grab headlines like price spikes, they build long-term utility, and any builder will tell you that infrastructure upgrades ultimately matter a lot more than short term markets.
What the Community Is Doing
Let’s talk about the community pulse because that’s what really makes a network alive.
On-Chain Activity
Recent data shows that the number of active addresses interacting with the network is growing. More hands on deck means more real use cases and less speculative noise.
Transaction volumes are rising too, which tells us that people aren’t just staking they’re actually using the network. That’s a sign of maturation.
Developer Engagement
Forums, social channels and developer spaces related to DUSK have seen renewed energy. Workshops, webinars, and educational pushes are happening more frequently. This matters because new contributors are the lifeblood of any open source project.
Price and Market Trends
We won’t go deep into speculation here, but it’s worth mentioning that the market has responded to these developments. There have been significant upticks in price when key milestones hit, which isn’t surprising. Market participants react to proof points rather than ideas.
Importantly, these moves have been tied to actual developments like mainnet progress and partnerships instead of random social media hype. That’s a different kind of narrative one rooted in fundamentals.
The Regulatory Landscape
Here’s the elephant in the room: regulation. For a long time the crypto world avoided talking about it, but DUSK has made regulatory readiness a core part of its product design.
By building with compliance in mind, especially with European frameworks like MiCA, DUSK is positioning itself in a place where traditional institutions can experiment with blockchain without fear of running afoul of laws. This is no small thing especially as more governments tighten rules around digital assets.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t risks. Regulatory shifts can slow adoption or make certain financial use cases harder. But building compliance into the core protocol from day one is a forward thinking move.
Where We’re Headed
So where does everything point?
Real World Asset Tokenization: If DUSK can facilitate broad tokenization of stocks, bonds, real estate, or private investments and do so with privacy and regulatory compliance the platform could become foundational infrastructure for the next generation of finance.
Institutional Bridges; The collaborations we’re seeing now are early but meaningful. They show a path where regulated firms can use blockchain in ways that were previously blocked by compliance concerns.
Dev Ecosystem Growth: With things like DuskEVM and various SDKs evolving, we’re likely going to see more builders willing to take a shot at privacy-aware applications.
Final Thoughts
What I love most about the journey here is that DUSK isn’t chasing shiny trends. The project has carved out a thoughtful space in the intersection of privacy, compliance, and real world financial applications. And now that the mainnet is live, the next chapter is about execution building tools, attracting real users, and showing that blockchain can serve regulated markets in a meaningful way.
For everyone in the community, this feels like we’re finally past the starting line. We’re moving into real world utility. And that’s the part where dreams can turn into everyday impact.
If you’re holding, building, or just watching closely, the evolution of DUSK is something to keep your eyes on not because of price charts or tweets but because this could be one of the rare projects actually delivering on a long standing promise: privacy and finance on chain that makes sense.
Let’s stay connected and keep pushing forward.
Hey everyone! Let’s take a deep dive into what’s been going on with DUSK (that’s the Dusk Foundation and the DUSK Network) lately. I want to talk to you like a friend sharing updates with the community so expect a casual breakdown of hard facts, real developments, and what it all means for the future. No hype, no repetition, just fresh insights based on recent happenings across the ecosystem.
What DUSK Has Been Building
If you’ve been around the project for a while, you know DUSK started with a big promise: combine privacy with real world utility. That idea has always sounded amazing, but until this past year it was mostly theoretical. Everything changed when the mainnet finally went live after years of development. This wasn’t just a checklist achievement it marked a shift from concept to functioning infrastructure that anyone can use, build on, and participate in.
Unlike some blockchains that focus on flashy DeFi rewards or meme coin communities, DUSK has stuck to its roots: real world asset tokenization, privacy for financial use cases, and compliance with existing regulations. And now those roots are showing real growth.
Mainnet and Core Capabilities
What’s most exciting is that the mainnet launch actually delivered on some of the core promises:
Privacy by Design: Every transaction on DUSK can be engineered to protect sensitive data using zero knowledge cryptography. This means you can prove a transaction is valid without revealing the details to everyone on the network. That’s powerful for anything financial, especially when institutions are watching for compliance.
Real World Asset Tokenization Ready: Tokenizing real world assets like bonds, stocks, or private company equity has been talked about for years in crypto. DUSK now has the plumbing to actually do this in a privacy aware way. Institutional partners can bring regulated assets on-chain and let them trade or settle in a blockchain environment.
Staking and Network Participation: The network doesn’t just run itself. DUSK holders can stake their tokens to secure the network and earn rewards. New mechanisms like liquid staking and hyperstaking give more flexibility than older blockchains ever offered.
All of these capabilities give DUSK something very few projects can claim: a real infrastructure play that bridges traditional finance and Web3.
Growing Institutional Interest
Let’s talk about one of the biggest shifts in the last few months: institutions are starting to pay attention in a meaningful way.
Partnerships That Matter
We’ve seen integrations and collaborations with players that are not just “crypto exchanges” but regulated financial institutions like the Dutch exchange NPEX. This kind of partnership is huge because it shows DUSK isn’t building in a vacuum. It’s building for systems that already exist in traditional finance.
Another key development is working with Chainlink technology to bring real world financial data on-chain and support cross-chain communication. By teaming up with Chainlink, DUSK can reliably use external price feeds and move tokenized assets between different blockchains while maintaining privacy and compliance. That’s no small feat.
These partnerships are not just press releases. They signal that regulated entities the types of groups that actually handle large sums of money are at least exploring how DUSK fits into their operations.
A Network You Can Build On
Okay let’s switch gears from partnerships to tech that developers and builders actually care about.
DuskEVM
One of the newer pieces in the ecosystem is something called DuskEVM. Essentially, this gives developers familiar with the Ethereum environment the ability to write and deploy smart contracts on DUSK using tools they already know. That removes a massive barrier to entry.
This is important because it means the ecosystem doesn’t have to rely solely on niche tooling. You get the privacy and compliance benefits of DUSK without sacrificing developer comfort or access to existing code libraries.
Developer Tooling
The team has also been hard at work improving the developer experience around the network with tools like SDKs and other infrastructure. These make it easier to build wallets, dApps, and services that interact with DUSK without reinventing the wheel.
While these kinds of updates don’t grab headlines like price spikes, they build long-term utility, and any builder will tell you that infrastructure upgrades ultimately matter a lot more than short term markets.
What the Community Is Doing
Let’s talk about the community pulse because that’s what really makes a network alive.
On-Chain Activity
Recent data shows that the number of active addresses interacting with the network is growing. More hands on deck means more real use cases and less speculative noise.
Transaction volumes are rising too, which tells us that people aren’t just staking they’re actually using the network. That’s a sign of maturation.
Developer Engagement
Forums, social channels and developer spaces related to DUSK have seen renewed energy. Workshops, webinars, and educational pushes are happening more frequently. This matters because new contributors are the lifeblood of any open source project.
Price and Market Trends
We won’t go deep into speculation here, but it’s worth mentioning that the market has responded to these developments. There have been significant upticks in price when key milestones hit, which isn’t surprising. Market participants react to proof points rather than ideas.
Importantly, these moves have been tied to actual developments like mainnet progress and partnerships instead of random social media hype. That’s a different kind of narrative one rooted in fundamentals.
The Regulatory Landscape
Here’s the elephant in the room: regulation. For a long time the crypto world avoided talking about it, but DUSK has made regulatory readiness a core part of its product design.
By building with compliance in mind, especially with European frameworks like MiCA, DUSK is positioning itself in a place where traditional institutions can experiment with blockchain without fear of running afoul of laws. This is no small thing especially as more governments tighten rules around digital assets.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t risks. Regulatory shifts can slow adoption or make certain financial use cases harder. But building compliance into the core protocol from day one is a forward thinking move.
Where We’re Headed
So where does everything point?
Real World Asset Tokenization: If DUSK can facilitate broad tokenization of stocks, bonds, real estate, or private investments and do so with privacy and regulatory compliance the platform could become foundational infrastructure for the next generation of finance.
Institutional Bridges; The collaborations we’re seeing now are early but meaningful. They show a path where regulated firms can use blockchain in ways that were previously blocked by compliance concerns.
Dev Ecosystem Growth: With things like DuskEVM and various SDKs evolving, we’re likely going to see more builders willing to take a shot at privacy-aware applications.
Final Thoughts
What I love most about the journey here is that DUSK isn’t chasing shiny trends. The project has carved out a thoughtful space in the intersection of privacy, compliance, and real world financial applications. And now that the mainnet is live, the next chapter is about execution building tools, attracting real users, and showing that blockchain can serve regulated markets in a meaningful way.
For everyone in the community, this feels like we’re finally past the starting line. We’re moving into real world utility. And that’s the part where dreams can turn into everyday impact.
If you’re holding, building, or just watching closely, the evolution of DUSK is something to keep your eyes on not because of price charts or tweets but because this could be one of the rare projects actually delivering on a long standing promise: privacy and finance on chain that makes sense.
Let’s stay connected and keep pushing forward.
Plasma’s Quiet Shift: From Trading Rail to Mission-Driven Stablecoin Infrastructure 🎀
Plasma is quietly evolving into something far more meaningful than just another trading rail, and that shift is easy to miss if you’re only watching price. While much of crypto still revolves around speculation and short-term liquidity games, Plasma is positioning itself as a mission-driven payments infrastructure — one designed for real-world capital movement, not just charts.
At its core, Plasma is becoming a stablecoin rails chain with purpose. The focus is moving toward real disbursements: grant funding, humanitarian aid, structured payments, and capital flows where accountability matters just as much as speed. This is a different category of usage entirely. These are not trades chasing volatility, but funds that must reach recipients quickly, transparently, and under clearly defined rules.
In traditional systems, humanitarian aid and grant disbursements are slow, opaque, and expensive. Funds pass through multiple intermediaries, reporting is delayed, and accountability is often weak. Plasma’s approach flips that model. By enabling programmable controls on stablecoin transfers, donors can set unambiguous rules on how funds are distributed, when they unlock, and under what conditions they can be used. This creates trust by design, not by promise.
For recipients, the benefit is just as critical. Speed matters when money is tied to real needs. Plasma enables near-instant settlement, allowing funds to reach the end user without weeks of delay or unnecessary friction. Clean, on-chain settlement records ensure that every transaction is traceable and verifiable, reducing disputes and increasing confidence for all parties involved.
This is where payments stop being financial anarchy and start becoming responsible infrastructure. Programmable stablecoins allow capital to move with intent. Restrictions can prevent misuse without blocking access. Reporting becomes automatic instead of manual. Compliance becomes embedded rather than enforced after the fact. Plasma is building rails where responsibility and efficiency coexist.
What’s important is that this evolution doesn’t abandon Plasma’s original strengths. Trading and liquidity still matter, but they are no longer the entire story. The chain is expanding into a layer where stablecoins are used as tools for coordination, governance, and impact. That’s a much harder problem to solve — and far more valuable if executed correctly.
Ecosystems built around mission-aligned capital tend to be stickier than those built purely on speculation. Grant programs, NGOs, DAOs, and institutional donors require infrastructure they can trust. Plasma is clearly signaling that it wants to serve that demand, not just chase the next narrative cycle.
In a market obsessed with hype, Plasma’s shift is subtle. But infrastructure plays are rarely loud in the early stages. If Plasma succeeds, it won’t be because of short-term price action. It will be because it becomes a chain where money moves with rules, records are clean, and real-world value is transferred at scale.
That’s not a trading rail narrative. That’s a foundation narrative.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
At its core, Plasma is becoming a stablecoin rails chain with purpose. The focus is moving toward real disbursements: grant funding, humanitarian aid, structured payments, and capital flows where accountability matters just as much as speed. This is a different category of usage entirely. These are not trades chasing volatility, but funds that must reach recipients quickly, transparently, and under clearly defined rules.
In traditional systems, humanitarian aid and grant disbursements are slow, opaque, and expensive. Funds pass through multiple intermediaries, reporting is delayed, and accountability is often weak. Plasma’s approach flips that model. By enabling programmable controls on stablecoin transfers, donors can set unambiguous rules on how funds are distributed, when they unlock, and under what conditions they can be used. This creates trust by design, not by promise.
For recipients, the benefit is just as critical. Speed matters when money is tied to real needs. Plasma enables near-instant settlement, allowing funds to reach the end user without weeks of delay or unnecessary friction. Clean, on-chain settlement records ensure that every transaction is traceable and verifiable, reducing disputes and increasing confidence for all parties involved.
This is where payments stop being financial anarchy and start becoming responsible infrastructure. Programmable stablecoins allow capital to move with intent. Restrictions can prevent misuse without blocking access. Reporting becomes automatic instead of manual. Compliance becomes embedded rather than enforced after the fact. Plasma is building rails where responsibility and efficiency coexist.
What’s important is that this evolution doesn’t abandon Plasma’s original strengths. Trading and liquidity still matter, but they are no longer the entire story. The chain is expanding into a layer where stablecoins are used as tools for coordination, governance, and impact. That’s a much harder problem to solve — and far more valuable if executed correctly.
Ecosystems built around mission-aligned capital tend to be stickier than those built purely on speculation. Grant programs, NGOs, DAOs, and institutional donors require infrastructure they can trust. Plasma is clearly signaling that it wants to serve that demand, not just chase the next narrative cycle.
In a market obsessed with hype, Plasma’s shift is subtle. But infrastructure plays are rarely loud in the early stages. If Plasma succeeds, it won’t be because of short-term price action. It will be because it becomes a chain where money moves with rules, records are clean, and real-world value is transferred at scale.
That’s not a trading rail narrative. That’s a foundation narrative.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL
Funny how quiet it gets now.
Not long ago, timelines were full of people calling for $XPL at $100 with full confidence. Same accounts, same certainty, zero humility. That phase always ends the same way.
From a technical perspective, this is the first time in months where price is sitting at a level that actually matters. Momentum is dead, sentiment is ugly, and nobody wants to talk about it anymore. That’s usually when charts start to get interesting again.
Not calling a moon. Not chasing hype. Just observing structure and waiting. I’ve been watching this level for a long time, and I’m finally paying attention again 👀
@Plasma #plasma
Not long ago, timelines were full of people calling for $XPL at $100 with full confidence. Same accounts, same certainty, zero humility. That phase always ends the same way.
From a technical perspective, this is the first time in months where price is sitting at a level that actually matters. Momentum is dead, sentiment is ugly, and nobody wants to talk about it anymore. That’s usually when charts start to get interesting again.
Not calling a moon. Not chasing hype. Just observing structure and waiting. I’ve been watching this level for a long time, and I’m finally paying attention again 👀
@Plasma #plasma
Fundamentals over FOMO always the safer bet in crypto.
A L I M A
·
--
Plasma Isn’t Chasing Users, It’s Capturing Stablecoin Flow.
In crypto, most infrastructure doesn’t win by being loud. It wins by becoming invisible. Plasma is a good example of that dynamic. It didn’t emerge as a flashy “do everything” blockchain. Instead, it made a very deliberate choice early on: treat stablecoins not as a feature, but as the core product. That decision shapes almost everything Plasma is building today.
Why Stablecoin First Actually Matters
Most chains add stablecoins later, once the base layer is live. Plasma flips this. The chain is designed around the reality that stablecoins already power most real on chain activity: payments, remittances, treasury movements, payroll, merchant settlement and cross border transfers.
By starting with stablecoins, Plasma avoids a common contradiction in crypto UX:
moving “stable money” while relying on volatile assets just to pay gas.
Protocol level implications
Stablecoin denominated fee paths
Gasless or sponsored USDT transfers
Predictable transaction behavior under load
These aren’t bolt ons. They’re foundational design choices.
Built for Flow, Not Hype
Plasma is best understood as a settlement and flow network, not a playground chain. The goal isn’t maximal experimentation; it’s maximal reliability.
In payments, users don’t optimize for features. They optimize for habits. Transfers need to be:
Instant or near instant
Cheap to the point of being forgettable
Boringly reliable
Plasma’s architecture reflects this. Finality is designed around certainty rather than benchmark theatrics. Fees are minimized so they don’t interrupt the act of moving dollars. That’s how infrastructure becomes sticky.
Liquidity From Day One
One of Plasma’s most unconventional moves is launching with meaningful stablecoin liquidity already present. Instead of asking developers to build first and hope capital arrives later, Plasma starts with capital in motion.
What this changes
Apps aren’t deployed into an empty environment
Payments and payouts can be tested at real scale
Early products don’t rely purely on incentives to feel alive
For builders focused on real usage rather than speculative traffic this matters.
Familiar Tools, Lower Friction
Plasma is fully EVM-compatible. This isn’t innovation for its own sake it’s practical infrastructure design. Developers can use the same wallets, tooling, and workflows they already trust.
Adoption slows when friction rises. Plasma removes that friction by design.
Beyond Payments: The Payouts Angle
One of Plasma’s most underrated strengths is how naturally it fits payout-heavy platforms. Marketplaces, gig platforms, creator tools, gaming studios, and global contractor networks don’t struggle with single payments. They struggle with many to many payouts.
Plasma’s stablecoin native rails align with:
Batch payouts
Cross border distribution
Predictable reconciliation
Audit friendly settlement trails
This is where stablecoins quietly outperform traditional rails not by being faster, but by being simpler to operate at scale.
Security Anchored in Neutrality:
Plasma is anchored to Bitcoin-grade security assumptions, signaling a long-term focus on neutrality and censorship resistance. That matters once stablecoin flows intersect with institutional balance sheets and regulatory scrutiny.
The message is subtle but important:
this network is meant to last, not pivot every cycle.
The Real Investment Question:
Plasma isn’t trying to win Crypto Twitter. It’s trying to become habit.
The real metrics aren’t slogans they’re behavior:
Does stablecoin supply remain resilient over time?
Does organic transaction volume grow without heavy subsidies?
Do apps generate sustainable revenue above the free transfer layer?
If Plasma succeeds, it won’t feel exciting.
It will feel inevitable.
That’s usually what real infrastructure looks like when it works.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
Why Stablecoin First Actually Matters
Most chains add stablecoins later, once the base layer is live. Plasma flips this. The chain is designed around the reality that stablecoins already power most real on chain activity: payments, remittances, treasury movements, payroll, merchant settlement and cross border transfers.
By starting with stablecoins, Plasma avoids a common contradiction in crypto UX:
moving “stable money” while relying on volatile assets just to pay gas.
Protocol level implications
Stablecoin denominated fee paths
Gasless or sponsored USDT transfers
Predictable transaction behavior under load
These aren’t bolt ons. They’re foundational design choices.
Built for Flow, Not Hype
Plasma is best understood as a settlement and flow network, not a playground chain. The goal isn’t maximal experimentation; it’s maximal reliability.
In payments, users don’t optimize for features. They optimize for habits. Transfers need to be:
Instant or near instant
Cheap to the point of being forgettable
Boringly reliable
Plasma’s architecture reflects this. Finality is designed around certainty rather than benchmark theatrics. Fees are minimized so they don’t interrupt the act of moving dollars. That’s how infrastructure becomes sticky.
Liquidity From Day One
One of Plasma’s most unconventional moves is launching with meaningful stablecoin liquidity already present. Instead of asking developers to build first and hope capital arrives later, Plasma starts with capital in motion.
What this changes
Apps aren’t deployed into an empty environment
Payments and payouts can be tested at real scale
Early products don’t rely purely on incentives to feel alive
For builders focused on real usage rather than speculative traffic this matters.
Familiar Tools, Lower Friction
Plasma is fully EVM-compatible. This isn’t innovation for its own sake it’s practical infrastructure design. Developers can use the same wallets, tooling, and workflows they already trust.
Adoption slows when friction rises. Plasma removes that friction by design.
Beyond Payments: The Payouts Angle
One of Plasma’s most underrated strengths is how naturally it fits payout-heavy platforms. Marketplaces, gig platforms, creator tools, gaming studios, and global contractor networks don’t struggle with single payments. They struggle with many to many payouts.
Plasma’s stablecoin native rails align with:
Batch payouts
Cross border distribution
Predictable reconciliation
Audit friendly settlement trails
This is where stablecoins quietly outperform traditional rails not by being faster, but by being simpler to operate at scale.
Security Anchored in Neutrality:
Plasma is anchored to Bitcoin-grade security assumptions, signaling a long-term focus on neutrality and censorship resistance. That matters once stablecoin flows intersect with institutional balance sheets and regulatory scrutiny.
The message is subtle but important:
this network is meant to last, not pivot every cycle.
The Real Investment Question:
Plasma isn’t trying to win Crypto Twitter. It’s trying to become habit.
The real metrics aren’t slogans they’re behavior:
Does stablecoin supply remain resilient over time?
Does organic transaction volume grow without heavy subsidies?
Do apps generate sustainable revenue above the free transfer layer?
If Plasma succeeds, it won’t feel exciting.
It will feel inevitable.
That’s usually what real infrastructure looks like when it works.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
The market’s full of noise, but the projects building real infrastructure always stand out. 👀
A L I M A
·
--
Vanar Chain: Why the AI Era Is Exposing the Limits of Modern Layer 1s.
For the last decade, launching a new Layer 1 blockchain followed a predictable formula. Higher throughput, lower fees, faster finality. If the benchmarks looked good and incentives were attractive, builders and users would eventually follow. That playbook worked when blockchains were primarily serving humans—traders, gamers and users clicking buttons in relatively simple applications.
The AI era is quietly breaking those assumptions.
Autonomous agents don’t behave like people. They don’t log off during downturns, wait for UI improvements, or tolerate ambiguity. They run continuously, accumulate context, coordinate with other systems, and expect outcomes to be enforced every time. In this environment, raw execution speed is no longer the main constraint. Intelligence, persistence, and enforcement are.
This is where many new L1s begin to struggle.
The Execution Trap:
Most modern chains are still optimized as execution engines. More TPS, parallel execution, cheaper gas. These optimizations matter, but they solve a diminishing problem. AI agents don’t spike activity; they maintain it. They require predictable environments over long periods, not just bursts of performance.
Fast but forgetful systems are hostile to AI. Stateless execution forces memory and reasoning off chain, where trust erodes. When intelligence lives outside the chain but enforcement lives on it, the system becomes fragile. Many L1s still assume execution is the bottleneck, when for AI systems, it’s often the least interesting part.
Memory Is the Real Scarcity:
AI systems depend on memory not just storage, but structured, persistent state that can be referenced and enforced over time. While blockchains technically store data, they rarely treat memory as a first-class design concern. It’s expensive, awkward, and often discouraged.
This pushes developers toward external databases and indexing layers. As intelligence migrates off-chain, the blockchain’s role degrades into a passive settlement layer. The chain records outcomes but doesn’t understand or govern the system it secures. For AI-native applications, this is a structural weakness.
Reasoning and Enforcement Matter More Than Speed"
Reasoning isn’t just smart contract logic. It’s the interpretation of evolving rules, permissions, and context. AI agents need clear boundaries: what’s allowed, what’s final, and what happens when conditions change. Chains that rely on social governance or informal enforcement introduce uncertainty autonomous systems can’t tolerate.
In the AI era, enforcement must be structural, not social. Intelligence without guaranteed execution or rejection becomes optional, negotiable, and exploitable.
Why Vanar Chain Takes a Different Path:
Vanar stands out not by promising faster execution, but by starting from a different premise: AI agents are not edge cases—they’re primary users. Its architecture emphasizes memory, reasoning, and enforcement as core properties rather than add-ons.
Instead of optimizing solely for throughput, Vanar focuses on long-running systems that require continuity and trust. Memory is treated as an asset, reasoning is embedded into how state is interpreted, and enforcement is explicit. The result isn’t flashy benchmark performance, but resilience as intelligent systems scale.
The Quiet Failure of Many L1s:
Chains that don’t adapt won’t fail dramatically. They’ll fail quietly. Execution will stay on-chain, but intelligence will move elsewhere. Over time, these networks lose strategic relevance.
The AI era isn’t asking blockchains to be faster calculators. It’s asking them to be environments where intelligence can live, remember, and act with consequences.
Most L1s are still building calculators. Vanar is trying to build a habitat.
@Vanar
The AI era is quietly breaking those assumptions.
Autonomous agents don’t behave like people. They don’t log off during downturns, wait for UI improvements, or tolerate ambiguity. They run continuously, accumulate context, coordinate with other systems, and expect outcomes to be enforced every time. In this environment, raw execution speed is no longer the main constraint. Intelligence, persistence, and enforcement are.
This is where many new L1s begin to struggle.
The Execution Trap:
Most modern chains are still optimized as execution engines. More TPS, parallel execution, cheaper gas. These optimizations matter, but they solve a diminishing problem. AI agents don’t spike activity; they maintain it. They require predictable environments over long periods, not just bursts of performance.
Fast but forgetful systems are hostile to AI. Stateless execution forces memory and reasoning off chain, where trust erodes. When intelligence lives outside the chain but enforcement lives on it, the system becomes fragile. Many L1s still assume execution is the bottleneck, when for AI systems, it’s often the least interesting part.
Memory Is the Real Scarcity:
AI systems depend on memory not just storage, but structured, persistent state that can be referenced and enforced over time. While blockchains technically store data, they rarely treat memory as a first-class design concern. It’s expensive, awkward, and often discouraged.
This pushes developers toward external databases and indexing layers. As intelligence migrates off-chain, the blockchain’s role degrades into a passive settlement layer. The chain records outcomes but doesn’t understand or govern the system it secures. For AI-native applications, this is a structural weakness.
Reasoning and Enforcement Matter More Than Speed"
Reasoning isn’t just smart contract logic. It’s the interpretation of evolving rules, permissions, and context. AI agents need clear boundaries: what’s allowed, what’s final, and what happens when conditions change. Chains that rely on social governance or informal enforcement introduce uncertainty autonomous systems can’t tolerate.
In the AI era, enforcement must be structural, not social. Intelligence without guaranteed execution or rejection becomes optional, negotiable, and exploitable.
Why Vanar Chain Takes a Different Path:
Vanar stands out not by promising faster execution, but by starting from a different premise: AI agents are not edge cases—they’re primary users. Its architecture emphasizes memory, reasoning, and enforcement as core properties rather than add-ons.
Instead of optimizing solely for throughput, Vanar focuses on long-running systems that require continuity and trust. Memory is treated as an asset, reasoning is embedded into how state is interpreted, and enforcement is explicit. The result isn’t flashy benchmark performance, but resilience as intelligent systems scale.
The Quiet Failure of Many L1s:
Chains that don’t adapt won’t fail dramatically. They’ll fail quietly. Execution will stay on-chain, but intelligence will move elsewhere. Over time, these networks lose strategic relevance.
The AI era isn’t asking blockchains to be faster calculators. It’s asking them to be environments where intelligence can live, remember, and act with consequences.
Most L1s are still building calculators. Vanar is trying to build a habitat.
@Vanar
سجّل الدخول لاستكشاف المزيد من المُحتوى