Naccy小妹

come

Come on

66

Here it comes

📣📣📣📣📣Everyone, please stop blackening me, I beg you🙏🏻

Recently, more and more people have added me through the chat room to chat with my ID, and most of them have almost the same opening lines.

👨
👔: Naccy, in the Web3 wallet, there is a coin called Naccy sister, did you issue it?

Naccy: No!

👨
🎽: The avatar name is exactly the same as yours, if you didn't issue it, then who did?

Naccy: I really didn't, I have never issued a coin...

I opened the wallet and searched, as expected.

Token address 2, dizzy 😵😵😵😵

To clarify, the recent Chinese Memes are indeed in full swing, but I really did not issue any coins, I'm just reaping benefits, haha😃

Don't blindly invest, be rational, there are risks in the crypto world!

Recently, Binance launched the privacy track token DUSK (Dusk Network), which has experienced significant price fluctuations, sparking widespread discussion in the market. However, the notion of being 'cut by the leeks' lacks factual support and should be viewed rationally. In mid-January 2026, DUSK stood out in the rotation of funds within the privacy coin sector, leveraging its technological advantages of zero-knowledge proofs and compliance traceability, combined with the speculative appeal of small to mid-cap assets, resulting in a cumulative increase of over 4 times within a month, reaching a new high since early 2025. However, from January 19-20, the token pulled back about 25% after hitting a temporary peak, and this volatility is actually the result of multiple market factors resonating.

From the core reasons, this pullback first stems from the concentrated realization of profits—on-chain data shows that the inflow of DUSK into exchanges hit a new monthly high before the pullback, with early holders accelerating cashing out, leading to selling pressure. Secondly, after key technical support levels were breached, short-term speculative funds following the trend further amplified the decline. More importantly, during the same period, the overall cryptocurrency market fell into an 'extreme fear' range, with Bitcoin dropping below the $90,000 mark, and leading privacy coins like XMR and DASH also pulling back, resulting in an evaporation of $120 billion in market capitalization, inevitably putting pressure on high-volatility altcoins.

It is worth noting that Binance has not issued any negative announcements or restrictive measures regarding DUSK, and the current controversy is entirely focused on the price itself rather than the actions of the exchange. As a privacy track token, DUSK combines technological narratives with speculative properties, and due to its relatively small market capitalization, it inherently possesses high volatility. This pullback is essentially a rational correction following an earlier surge and is a normal phenomenon in the cryptocurrency market. Investors should view the rotation of tracks and the game of funds rationally, avoiding equating normal market fluctuations with 'cutting leeks' behavior.

If further adjustments to the focus of the text are needed—such as strengthening technical analysis, supplementing specific price data, or adding risk warning dimensions—please feel free to let me know. I can also provide the target publication scenario (e.g., community science popularization, financial news), and I will optimize the expression style accordingly.

$DUSK #dusk

In the reality of multiple chains coexisting, how does Plasma avoid being 'marginalized'?

A frequently raised concern is: when stablecoins can circulate on multiple chains, will a network focused on settlement be conveniently 'overwritten' by other public chains? This question seems reasonable, but the premise often overlooks one point—coexistence of multiple chains does not equate to equivalence. The value of Plasma lies not in functional overlap but in the different role it plays.

In a multi-chain environment, most public chains remain application-centric, with settlement as just an ancillary capability. This means that when network load changes and application demands adjust, settlement behavior will also be affected. Plasma chooses to separate settlement, making it no longer strongly tied to application prosperity. This structure, in a multi-chain world, instead creates a 'denoising' advantage.

Marginalization often occurs in networks with ambiguous positioning. From the very beginning, Plasma's design has abandoned the 'omni-narrative' and has made it clear that it only solves one thing: how stablecoins can be reliably settled. When other chains need a stable and predictable settlement channel, Plasma is more like an external module rather than a competitor. This relationship is closer to complementarity rather than substitution.

Moreover, coexistence of multiple chains does not imply that every chain needs to be switched frequently. For payments and settlements, the switching cost itself is a risk. Plasma reduces the incentive to be replaced by operating stably over the long term. It does not seek to become 'the hottest chain,' but rather aims to become 'the chain that needs the least consideration.'

From the perspective of system evolution, those that get marginalized are often networks that need to constantly prove their value, rather than infrastructures that are taken for granted. Plasma views time and consistency as core assets, which may not show immediate benefits in the short term, but could become a scarce advantage in an environment of increasing multi-chain complexity.

When multi-chain becomes the norm, what is truly scarce is not choice, but the need for choice. What Plasma attempts to construct is precisely this kind of settlement layer existence that is frequently invoked yet seldom discussed. @Plasma
$XPL #Plasma

The time advantage of Vanar Chain: It's not about chasing something, but waiting for something

Many projects are led by the market's rhythm. They shift direction when trends appear, change narratives, and their roadmaps are always adapted to the 'current sentiment'. However, Vanar Chain feels quite the opposite; it is not in a hurry to chase anything but is waiting for a time point that will inevitably come.

This time point is not a price turning point, nor a traffic turning point, but the stage where AI transitions from 'auxiliary tool' to 'independent entity'. Once AI begins to genuinely take on decision-making, execution, and economic activities, the requirements for underlying infrastructure will suddenly become very specific and demanding. By then, makeshift solutions will quickly reveal their shortcomings.

Vanar's advantage comes from this 'early completion'. While others are still discussing whether to supplement memory, whether to add settlement, or whether to enhance automation, it has already completed structural layout in these directions. This lead is not reflected in publicity but in the state of 'no need for changes'.

This is also an underestimated time advantage. It is not about making a head start but about getting into position early. When demand truly arises, there is no need for major structural changes or logic rewrites; one just needs to be selected. This advantage often determines life or death in infrastructure competition.

From a value perspective, $VANRY also resembles a bet on 'time readiness'. It is not about betting on the next narrative but on which systems are prepared when AI really needs blockchain. This bet is not stimulating, but once realized, it is often very solid.

Vanar Chain is not in a hurry to prove it runs the fastest; it is more concerned about whether it is already on the track when the finish line appears. @Vanarchain
$VANRY #vanar

The 'Invisible Value' of Settlement Networks: Why Plasma Doesn't Need High-Exposure Ecological Narratives

In the crypto market, the presence of a project is often directly linked to the scale of its ecosystem, the number of applications, and the heat of its narrative. However, when the perspective shifts to settlement networks, this evaluation system itself begins to fail. The value of Plasma does not depend on how many users 'see' it, but on how much real capital flows through it unnoticed.

The ideal state of a settlement network is inherently 'invisible'. For ordinary users, as long as stablecoin transfers are fast, stable, and cheap, all value exchanges have been completed; as for which underlying chain it runs on, that is not a decision factor. Plasma does not attempt to shape itself into a front-end product but accepts the role of an underlying pipeline. This positioning may not be clever on the narrative level but is closer to the operational mode of real infrastructure.

From an ecological perspective, Plasma is not eager to stack application numbers. Once the settlement layer carries too many complex logics, it increases the systemic risk. Plasma prefers to let upper-layer applications and services grow naturally around settlement needs rather than creating an illusion of prosperity through incentive mechanisms. This ecological rhythm is naturally slower but aligns more closely with the expansion speed of real demand.

This 'low-exposure' value structure also changes the way we measure network success. It's not about looking at daily new addresses, nor at TVL rankings, but rather whether stablecoin traffic is sustained, whether settlement behaviors are stable, and whether the system maintains consistency under high loads. These indicators are often not easily amplified by market sentiment, yet they determine whether the network possesses long-term viability.

In the real financial system, the most important infrastructure is often the least conspicuous. Clearinghouses, payment networks, and settlement channels rarely become the focus of discussion, yet they bear the most core functions. The path chosen by Plasma aligns with this logic rather than competing for attention with application-oriented public chains.

As the market gradually shifts from narrative-driven to demand-driven, the 'invisible value' of settlement networks will become easier to identify. Whether Plasma is successful ultimately does not depend on its heat, but on whether it can maintain a stable and reliable presence in long-term capital flows.
@Plasma
$XPL
#plasma

Not telling stories, but still growing: Understanding $VANRY from the perspective of 'preparedness'

In the crypto market, everyone is too accustomed to using narratives to understand a project: market trends, concept rotations, emotional cycles. But if you switch your perspective to the AI era, you will discover a change is happening—the marginal utility of narratives is declining, and the value of preparedness is rising.

The feeling that Vanar Chain gives is precisely not that of a project good at telling grand stories. It feels more like repeatedly confirming one thing: when AI truly becomes the main user on the chain, can this system be directly used without needing to be temporarily modified?

From the design at the infrastructure level, to products like myNeutron, Kayon, and Flows that have already run through the logic, to the completion of payment and cross-chain capabilities, Vanar has been doing 'preparation' rather than 'post-explanation.' This path may not be appealing in the short term, but it has a very realistic advantage: when demand truly arises, it does not need to prove itself again.

This is also why I prefer to understand $VANRY from the perspective of 'preparedness' rather than 'narrative intensity.' It is not betting on a specific short-term concept but rather on the moment when AI-native infrastructure will be genuinely used. Once AI behaviors start to go on-chain on a large scale, those systems that are already prepared will be more easily chosen than makeshift solutions.

In this process, the value of $VANRY does not depend on what the market says but on how many times the system has actually been used and how many intelligent agents have called it over the long term. This is a slow but very solid accumulation method.

Vanar Chain has chosen a quiet path: not grabbing trends, not piling concepts, but silently preparing everything that needs to be prepared. When the industry truly needs it, its presence will become impossible to ignore.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#Vanar
#vanar

CZ Speaks Again: Bitcoin in 2026 May Open an Unprecedented Super Cycle, Traditional Four-Year Bull-and-Bear Patterns May Be Completely Rewritten.

In an interview with CNBC at the Davos Forum, Binance founder CZ shared his views on the future trend of Bitcoin. He admitted: "I basically don't trade now; I only hold Bitcoin and BNB for the long term. In the early years, I also tried short-term trading, but the results were disastrous. Later, I realized that I am more suited for technology and product development rather than day trading."

CZ stated that the short-term price of Bitcoin is almost impossible to predict accurately, but the trend is relatively easier to judge over a longer period. "If we extend the time frame to a year, I can't say that every day in 2026 will see a rise, but I strongly feel that Bitcoin is likely to enter a whole new super cycle in 2026."

For the past decade, Bitcoin has been thought to follow a four-year bull-and-bear cycle: a major bull market follows each halving, followed by a long correction. However, CZ believes that the market environment has fundamentally changed this year.

"The United States' attitude toward the crypto industry has clearly shifted to support, with ETF listings, institutional funds flooding in, and multiple countries around the world starting to establish clearer regulatory frameworks. These factors combined are likely to allow Bitcoin to follow a path completely different from the past."

He further pointed out: "This year, we may see Bitcoin break through the traditional four-year cycle limit for the first time, entering a more lasting and stronger upward phase."

$BNB
$BTC