ICT_Crypto

Plasma is built around a simple idea that becomes more valuable every year. People do not wake up wanting a new blockchain. They want to move value quickly and safely in a unit they already trust. In many high adoption markets the practical unit is a digital dollar stablecoin because it behaves like cash but travels like software. Plasma takes that reality seriously and treats stablecoin settlement as the primary product rather than a side effect of general purpose execution. That choice shapes everything. The chain is designed to feel like a payments rail first and a crypto network second. When you judge it through that lens the roadmap stops looking like a collection of features and starts looking like a coherent attempt to remove friction from the most common stablecoin journey which is receive hold send repeat.
The strongest part of the Plasma thesis is not speed on paper. It is predictability. Settlement systems win when the experience is consistent at scale. If finality feels instant one day and uncertain the next then merchants and payment apps will not treat it as money grade infrastructure. Plasma aims for sub second finality using a dedicated consensus design built for fast agreement under normal network conditions while staying safe under faults. That is the type of engineering choice that is boring in the right way because it targets the thing payments operators care about most which is knowing when a transfer is truly done. In a retail corridor finality is trust. In an institutional corridor finality is risk control. A chain that optimizes for finality is effectively optimizing for business adoption because it reduces the operational burden that usually pushes teams back to slow but familiar rails.
Plasma also avoids a common trap by embracing full compatibility with the dominant smart contract environment that developers already ship to. Instead of asking builders to learn a new virtual machine and a new tool stack it leans into an execution client that is known for correctness and performance and keeps the contract surface familiar. This matters because stablecoin infrastructure is already heavily standardized. Wallet teams custody teams compliance teams auditors and integrators have muscle memory around existing contract behavior. When a chain stays aligned with that behavior it lowers migration cost and makes it easier to bring real applications over without rewriting the core logic that touches user funds. Compatibility is not just a developer convenience here. It is a settlement reliability choice because fewer edge case differences means fewer surprises in production.
Where Plasma becomes more than a fast compatible chain is in its stablecoin centric user experience primitives. The chain is designed to make stablecoin transfers feel normal to people who have never cared about gas tokens. Gasless transfers are the clearest example. A user can authorize a transfer and the network can sponsor the execution so the receiver and sender do not need to manage a separate fee asset in the moment. That sounds like a small detail until you look at real adoption funnels. Requiring a separate fee asset is one of the most common reasons new users fail to complete the first transfer. It creates a second onboarding step at the exact moment the user expected the product to work. Plasma is trying to delete that step because it understands that payments products win by reducing cognitive load. When people can send stablecoins without thinking about anything else the action starts to resemble a messaging app. That is the direction the whole industry is moving toward whether it admits it or not.
Stablecoin first gas pushes the same idea further. Even when transfers are not fully sponsored the chain is designed so fees can be paid using the stable asset the user already holds. Under the hood there is still a native token that the network uses for accounting and validator economics but the user does not have to hold it just to keep moving. This is a subtle but powerful approach because it aligns incentives without forcing the user to become a trader. It also makes the network easier to integrate into consumer apps where the product promise is a simple balance in a familiar unit. In that world forcing a user to acquire a volatile fee asset is not just annoying. It is a compliance and support burden. Plasma is trying to become the chain that removes that burden by default.
Privacy is the next frontier for stablecoin settlement and Plasma seems to be aiming for a middle path that is realistic for payments. Businesses need confidentiality for payroll supplier relationships and treasury flows. Retail users also need privacy for safety. But fully opaque systems trigger intense scrutiny and often become hard to integrate with regulated gateways. A modular approach that supports confidentiality while preserving paths for selective disclosure is the kind of design that can unlock serious real world usage without turning the network into a perpetual political target. This is not guaranteed to be easy. Getting privacy right is one of the hardest engineering and governance problems in the space. Still the fact that Plasma is treating it as a settlement requirement rather than an ideological add on is a sign that the team is thinking about who actually uses money rails.
The security story is also designed to speak to neutrality. Plasma frames part of its long term direction around anchoring to the most censorship resistant base layer and using that as a reference point for trust and resistance to capture. In practical terms that includes bridging designs and a roadmap toward stronger trust minimization over time. The honest way to read this is that early phases of any new settlement network rely on staged decentralization. What matters is whether the project can expand its validator set and harden its bridge assumptions fast enough that neutrality becomes earned rather than advertised. Payments adoption attracts pressure. If Plasma becomes a meaningful stablecoin rail it will face attempts to influence censorship policy and transaction routing. The only durable answer is credible decentralization plus clear rules that survive stress.
Now connect that back to the token. Plasma wants the user experience to hide token complexity but it does not want the economics to be optional. The native token matters because it underwrites validator incentives and provides the accounting unit that paymaster style mechanisms settle against. Even if users pay fees in stable assets the network still has to compensate validators and fund the infrastructure that keeps latency low and uptime high. That means the token becomes part of the plumbing rather than a speculative object that users must hold. In my view that is exactly what a payments chain should aim for. The token should be economically necessary but experientially invisible. When a network reaches that state it stops relying on constant attention cycles and starts relying on usage.
The most important question for Plasma is not whether it can be fast. Many networks can be fast under ideal conditions. The real question is whether it can be boring at scale. Can it keep transfers final and reliable during spikes. Can it manage sponsored transfers without turning into a centralized choke point. Can it keep stablecoin first gas flows safe against pricing manipulation and abuse. Can it broaden validator participation in a way that strengthens neutrality instead of weakening it. Can it build trust minimized bridging without adding hidden systemic risk. These are the questions that separate a chain that demos well from a chain that becomes infrastructure.
Plasma has picked the hardest path and the most practical one at the same time. It is trying to become the chain people use when they are not thinking about chains. That is a high bar because invisibility requires excellence. If Plasma earns that level of reliability while expanding decentralization then it will not just be another network in the ecosystem. It will be the kind of settlement layer that quietly reshapes how stablecoins move through the world. And if that happens the token will not need hype to matter because it will be tied to a network that people depend on not because it is exciting but because it works when it must.

#Plasma @Plasma $XPL

Dusk was founded in two thousand eighteen with a very specific instinct that most blockchains were built for open internet style transparency while real finance runs on controlled confidentiality and selective disclosure In the world of regulated markets privacy is not a luxury feature it is how business works because positions counterparties settlement instructions and client details must stay protected yet the system must still be verifiable when oversight is required Dusk tries to reconcile those two forces by treating privacy and auditability as first class design goals from the start That single choice shapes everything about the project because it pushes the network toward institutional grade workflows where you need credible compliance controls and you also need discretion that does not leak competitive information into the public domain When people describe Dusk as a layer one for regulated finance what they really mean is that the chain is trying to behave like financial infrastructure rather than like a public bulletin board.
What makes Dusk feel different is that it does not frame privacy as a cloak that hides everything forever It frames privacy as an operating mode that can be proven and inspected when necessary That idea matters more in the current market than most people admit because the hottest part of crypto adoption is no longer only about speculative tokens it is about bringing real assets on chain and making them tradable and usable without forcing institutions to expose their books to the world Tokenized real world assets are growing because they reduce friction in issuance settlement and distribution but they also raise the stakes on compliance identity policy enforcement and reporting The more real assets move on chain the less acceptable it becomes for the underlying rails to be either fully transparent or fully opaque Dusk is aiming at the middle path where transactions can stay confidential by default while the system still supports controlled visibility for auditors and regulators This is the kind of privacy that actually fits regulated finance because it protects everyday operations but does not prevent accountability.
Dusk also leans into a modular mindset that matches where the broader industry is headed Instead of forcing every application to use one rigid model it tries to offer a base settlement layer optimized for security and finality and then provide a developer friendly execution environment so builders can ship practical applications without reinventing everything from scratch The goal is to make it easy to build institutional grade financial applications compliant decentralized finance and real world asset platforms while keeping the privacy properties consistent across the stack This is where the confidence of the project either becomes real or falls apart because modular design only matters when it reduces friction for developers and institutions If the builder experience is smooth then applications can appear faster and iterate safely If it is clunky then even the best thesis becomes a slow moving promise Dusk is clearly trying to avoid that trap by making programmability and privacy work together rather than forcing teams to bolt privacy onto apps as an afterthought.
When you look at the DUSK token through this lens it stops being a narrative asset and becomes a utility asset tied to activity on the network In any functioning layer one the token matters because it secures the chain through staking and it is consumed through transaction fees and execution costs As Dusk grows that demand can come from multiple directions at the same time validators securing the network users moving value applications executing logic and institutions settling tokenized assets The most important insight here is that regulated adoption tends to be sticky once it starts because institutions build processes around rails they trust If Dusk becomes one of the rails that regulated applications rely on then DUSK demand can become linked to real economic throughput rather than short term attention The token becomes a meter for network usage and a bond for network security and that combination is what can sustain value even when market sentiment rotates.
The strongest case for Dusk is not that it will outperform every general purpose chain at everything The strongest case is that it can become the obvious choice for a category that is expanding fast and that has requirements most chains are not designed to meet confidential transactions that still allow auditability compliance friendly programmable finance and tokenized real world assets with privacy built in The main risk is execution because delivering privacy plus auditability plus an easy developer experience is hard and the market will not wait forever But if Dusk succeeds it will not look like a flashy moment it will look like quiet normalization where more regulated activity chooses the network because it feels like infrastructure that understands how finance actually works In that world the most valuable feature is not hype or novelty it is the ability to make real financial activity feel safe compliant and private without breaking the rules or exposing the people using it.

#dusk @Dusk $DUSK

Vanar is built with a very specific kind of person in mind and it is not the trader who lives inside charts all day It is the builder who wants millions of normal users to show up and never feel like they are using crypto The chain is shaped around the idea that adoption is mostly a usability problem not an ideology contest People do not leave games or apps because consensus is not elegant They leave because the experience is slow confusing expensive or unpredictable Vanar tries to remove those frictions at the base layer so product teams can design with confidence It aims for fast confirmations and consistently tiny transaction costs so actions feel instant and pricing feels stable The deeper idea is simple If a chain behaves like dependable infrastructure then teams stop treating it like an experiment and start treating it like a platform That is why Vanar keeps leaning into a consumer world view where the most common transaction is not a large trade but a small action repeated many times such as claiming an item updating access verifying ownership or triggering a routine automation.
That product first mindset also explains the controversial parts Vanar is not trying to win by turning every user into a fee bidder Instead it pushes toward predictable fees and a straightforward queue so everyday actions do not become a competitive auction This is a strong stance because it tells developers exactly what their app will cost to run and it tells users that the system will not suddenly punish them when activity rises But it also forces the network to be serious about protection against abuse because cheap predictable transactions attract both genuine demand and low effort spam So the real test is not whether the fee is small It is whether the chain can stay smooth when usage is messy The same realism shows up in how Vanar thinks about trust and security It starts from a model where validators are selected with an emphasis on reputation and accountability rather than anonymity That can feel less pure to decentralization maximalists but it fits Vanar goals because many mainstream products require stable operations clear responsibility and long term reliability The bet here is that decentralization is a journey and that the first milestone is being dependable enough that real businesses and real users are willing to build habits on top of it.
VANRY is meant to be more than a badge that you hold It is designed to be the fuel that powers the network and the incentive that sustains it over time The supply is structured with a clear ceiling and a long runway of emissions that reward validators and support ongoing development and community growth This matters because an adoption focused chain cannot rely forever on hype cycles It needs continuous work security and ecosystem building and those things need funding The token also has a role in making the user experience predictable because the network aims to keep transaction costs stable in practical terms even as the token price changes If Vanar succeeds the most important outcome will not be that it claims to be faster than everyone else The meaningful outcome will be that it becomes boring in the best way possible boring like payment rails boring like cloud infrastructure boring like something that simply works That is the kind of boring that creates habits and habits create demand The clearest path for Vanar is to turn its consumer thesis into repeatable daily utility through products like Virtua Metaverse and the VGN games network and through intelligent workflows that make data and actions verifiable and automatic When the chain becomes the invisible layer behind experiences people already want then VANRY becomes a unit of real usage not just a token with a story.

@Vanarchain #vanar $VANRY

Walrus è più facile da comprendere quando smetti di pensarlo come un token per prima cosa e inizi a pensarlo come un luogo dove i dati di dimensioni reali possono vivere senza rinunciare al controllo. La maggior parte delle reti è eccellente nel muovere piccoli frammenti di valore e piccoli frammenti di stato, ma nel momento in cui desideri spostare qualcosa di pesante come un archivio video, un set di dati, una build di gioco, un pacchetto di sito web o un record di conformità, il vecchio schema riappare. Qualcuno finisce per fidarsi di un fornitore di storage centralizzato, di un server privato, o di un insieme fragile di link che possono scomparire o essere modificati senza lasciare una traccia pulita. Walrus è progettato per rompere quel modello trattando file di grandi dimensioni come oggetti di prima classe che possono essere memorizzati, verificati, referenziati e riutilizzati dalle applicazioni senza trasformare lo storage in un singolo punto di guasto o un singolo punto di autorizzazione.

Plasma is building itself around a simple observation that most people in crypto already behave like stablecoins are the main product. They are the thing that moves across borders, pays contractors, settles invoices, tops up wallets, and survives market cycles because the unit stays familiar. Plasma takes that behavior seriously and treats stablecoin settlement as the core workload rather than a side effect of a general purpose chain. That decision changes what matters. It makes finality feel like a promise instead of a probability. It makes fees something users can understand without learning a second currency. It makes the network feel less like a technical playground and more like a practical money rail that can survive real world volume and real world scrutiny.
The execution environment is chosen for compatibility because payments do not reward novelty the way speculation does. The fastest path to real usage is letting existing wallets and developer tools work without rewrites, without new languages, and without strange edge cases that break integrations. Plasma keeps the familiar contract environment while rebuilding the system underneath it with performance and settlement in mind. The goal is not to surprise developers with new paradigms but to surprise users with how little they need to think about the chain at all. When a network is meant to carry everyday value, the winning design is often the one that feels invisible.
Where Plasma becomes truly opinionated is consensus and finality. In payments, time matters differently. A trader can tolerate waiting if the market is liquid, but a merchant and a payroll system want the transfer to be final now, not likely final soon. Plasma aims for deterministic fast finality so that a stablecoin transfer can be treated like settled money rather than a pending event. That is a psychological shift as much as a technical one. Once finality is fast and reliable, you can build simpler checkout flows, simpler risk controls, and simpler back office processes because you do not need to wrap everything in delay and doubt.
Plasma also treats the biggest onboarding friction in stablecoin usage as a design flaw that should be corrected at the protocol level. The average person does not want to acquire a separate volatile token just to move dollars. That requirement is one of the quiet reasons why stablecoin activity tends to consolidate on rails that feel cheap and easy even when they are imperfect in other ways. Plasma answers this by putting stablecoin centered fee behavior directly into the network. The most important transfer action is designed to feel gasless for the user, and broader activity is designed to let fees be paid in a stable currency so the user experience stays anchored to the same unit of account. This is not just convenience. It is a distribution strategy because the chain that removes the second token problem becomes the chain that wallets and apps can ship to normal people without a long explanation.
The security posture is also designed to speak to the kind of trust that payments require. A settlement network needs more than speed. It needs neutrality and censorship resistance that do not depend on the mood of a small group of operators. Plasma leans into an external anchoring approach that ties its history to a widely respected base layer known for durability. The idea is not to pretend that anchoring solves everything, but to make it dramatically harder to rewrite the past and easier to defend the network as a credible settlement venue when value at stake grows. This matters because stablecoin settlement is not only a technical service. It is a social contract. Users and institutions need to believe that transactions will be processed fairly and that the ledger will remain consistent even under pressure.
All of this feeds back into the role of the token. XPL is not meant to be the currency people think in when they are paying or settling. It is meant to be the security and incentive engine that keeps the system honest while the user lives in stablecoins. That separation is healthy for the mission because it prevents the chain from forcing payment users into exposure they did not ask for. XPL matters most in staking, validator incentives, and the long term sustainability of the network once early subsidies and growth programs taper off. The more the network succeeds as a stablecoin rail, the more XPL becomes connected to real demand for settlement throughput and network security rather than purely narrative demand. In other words, the project wins when the token becomes boring infrastructure that is continuously used because the rail is continuously useful.
The most telling thing about Plasma is that it is trying to win by changing what people expect from a stablecoin chain. It wants stablecoin transfers to feel natural, immediate, and low friction, and it wants the network to feel neutral enough that large flows can settle without fear of arbitrary interference. If Plasma proves it can keep fast finality, stablecoin first fees, and credible neutrality while steadily decentralizing its security model, then it stops competing as just another chain and starts competing as a default settlement layer for digital dollars. That is the moment the project becomes hard to ignore, not because it is loud, but because it quietly becomes the easiest and most reliable way to move stable value at scale, and XPL becomes the mechanism that secures that reality.

#Plasma @Plasma $XPL

Dusk è costruito attorno a un'idea semplice ma rara nel crypto, che l'infrastruttura finanziaria non dovrebbe forzare tutto alla vista pubblica solo per essere verificabile. Nei mercati reali, le informazioni più preziose sono spesso le più sensibili. Le dimensioni delle posizioni, le rotte di liquidazione, l'esposizione controparte, persino il timing di una transazione possono comportare rischi significativi. I sistemi tradizionali proteggono queste informazioni, producendo comunque registrazioni che revisori e supervisori possono verificare. Dusk cerca di portare quel medesimo equilibrio sulla catena, trattando la privacy e l'auditabilità come caratteristiche che devono convivere piuttosto che come nemici. La direzione del progetto è chiaramente orientata verso ambienti regolamentati, dove la riservatezza non è opzionale, ma la trasparenza è comunque richiesta nei luoghi e nei tempi giusti. Ecco perché Dusk si concentra sulla visibilità selettiva. Non tutto deve essere nascosto e non tutto dovrebbe essere pubblico. Ciò che conta è chi è autorizzato a vedere cosa e come quella visibilità può essere dimostrata senza rivelare dettagli apparenti a tutti gli altri.

Dusk was born from a clear reading of how real finance actually behaves. In most markets privacy is not a luxury it is the default setting. Traders do not publish their positions. Companies do not broadcast payroll lists. Funds do not reveal every counterparty relationship in real time. Yet regulated finance also requires proof. It requires audits. It requires reporting. Dusk is built to hold both truths at once by treating confidentiality and accountability as core infrastructure rather than competing goals that must be traded off.
The easiest way to understand Dusk is to stop thinking of it as a general chain that happens to support finance and start thinking of it as a financial network that happens to be programmable. Everything flows from that choice. The chain is designed to host instruments and applications where rules matter and where identities and permissions cannot be left to informal conventions. That is why the story is not only about privacy. It is about privacy that can still be inspected by the right parties at the right time without exposing everyone to everything.
The most recent evolution in Dusk is the move toward a modular stack. This is not a cosmetic redesign. It is a practical answer to a real adoption barrier. Institutions and builders want predictable settlement. Developers want familiar execution. Compliance teams want controllable disclosure. A modular approach lets Dusk keep settlement steady while allowing execution environments and privacy tooling to progress without forcing the whole network to reinvent itself every time a new requirement appears.
At the base of this modular picture is a settlement layer that prioritizes deterministic outcomes. In finance the worst kind of uncertainty is not volatility it is ambiguity about whether something has settled. Dusk leans into a consensus approach that is built around committees and clear ratification so finality behaves like an event rather than a guess. When the network says a transaction is final it is meant to feel final in the way financial operators understand the word.
Above settlement sits an execution layer designed to meet builders where they already live. The goal is to let common smart contract patterns run with minimal friction so developers can focus on the business logic of assets and markets instead of wrestling with new semantics. This matters because regulated applications are already heavy with legal and operational complexity. If the programming environment adds unnecessary novelty it becomes a tax that institutions will simply refuse to pay.
The privacy model is where Dusk becomes emotionally intuitive. It does not force a single privacy posture for everything. Instead it supports both transparent and confidential transaction flows on the same network. That means the chain can host use cases that must be visible by default while also supporting workflows that cannot safely be public. This dual lane approach is closer to how finance behaves in practice where some disclosures are mandatory and other details must remain confidential to avoid harm.
Confidential transactions in Dusk are framed around proving correctness without exposing the underlying details. The network can verify that rules were followed while keeping sensitive data shielded. The most important feature is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake. The important feature is selective disclosure. The ability to reveal specific facts to an authorized auditor or regulator without turning every transaction into a public confession. This is the bridge between privacy and compliance that most chains either ignore or outsource to fragile application level workarounds.
Identity and permissioning are treated as first class citizens in the design philosophy. Regulated finance lives and dies on eligibility. Who can hold an instrument. Who can trade it. Under what jurisdiction. Under what restrictions. Dusk aims to make it possible to enforce these constraints without making the market fully transparent to the world. That is the difference between a chain that can host regulated assets in theory and a chain that can host them in practice.
This focus naturally points toward tokenized real world assets. Tokenization is not just about putting an asset on chain. It is about making lifecycle events predictable. It is about ensuring transfers respect rules. It is about enabling settlement and corporate actions to happen with less friction. Dusk positions itself as a foundation for these kinds of systems where privacy protects stakeholders while auditability protects legitimacy. The promise is a market that is programmable and efficient without being reckless.
Compliant decentralized finance is another lane where Dusk’s approach is unusually coherent. Traditional decentralized finance often assumes open access and full transparency. Institutions usually cannot operate under those assumptions. They need controlled participation and privacy around positions and exposures. Dusk is attempting to make those requirements native. Not by turning the chain into a closed garden but by giving builders primitives for controlled access and selective disclosure so markets can remain verifiable without being fully exposed.
The DUSK token ties the whole system together as infrastructure fuel. It is used for securing the network through staking and for paying fees that sustain operation. The supply design is straightforward in principle. There is an initial supply that migrated into the native network and additional supply emitted gradually over a long horizon as rewards for securing the chain. That long runway matters because it signals a security budget that is meant to last through multiple market cycles rather than burning out after early hype.
Staking is not only an incentive mechanism. It is also a governance signal and a reliability mechanism. Networks that aim for regulated workloads must offer stability and predictable participation rules. Dusk frames staking with clear thresholds and straightforward mechanics so participation does not feel like a casino. The goal is to make securing the network feel like infrastructure work rather than speculative theater. Over time the health of this staking economy becomes one of the strongest indicators of whether the chain is becoming a durable backbone.
Recent operational communication also reveals something important about the project’s maturity. When a component that touches external transfers needs hardening the responsible move is to pause and improve safeguards rather than pretend nothing is happening. For a network targeting regulated use cases this reflex matters. Institutions do not demand perfection. They demand disciplined risk management and clear boundaries between what is operating normally and what is under review.
What I find most compelling about Dusk is not any single feature. It is the coherence of the worldview. The chain is designed as if the end user is a financial operator and a compliance officer at the same time. That sounds heavy but it is exactly the reality of institutional finance. You can build beautiful technology that ignores compliance and you will win applause and lose adoption. Or you can build technology that acknowledges real constraints and gradually become the boring system everyone relies on.
The long game for Dusk is to become the place where confidential markets can exist without sacrificing verifiability. If it succeeds the DUSK token gains meaning not because people are forced to hold it to transact but because it secures and prices a network where real assets and real institutions can finally operate with the privacy they require and the accountability they cannot avoid. The insight is that the future of on chain finance will not be defined by maximal transparency or maximal secrecy. It will be defined by controllable disclosure. Dusk is betting that controllable disclosure is the missing layer that turns experiments into infrastructure.

#dusk @Dusk $DUSK

Walrus è meglio compreso come un sistema decentralizzato per archiviare e servire grandi quantità di dati in un modo che può essere verificato senza fare affidamento su un singolo operatore. Invece di trattare l'archiviazione come un'utilità secondaria, il protocollo tratta l'archiviazione come una risorsa onchain di prima classe su cui le applicazioni possono ragionare e far rispettare attraverso regole programmabili. Quel cambiamento è importante perché le applicazioni moderne generano e dipendono da grandi file come archivi multimediali, artefatti di modelli, set di dati, registri e risorse applicative che non si adattano facilmente all'interno dell'archiviazione tipica della blockchain. Walrus è progettato affinché un utente possa pubblicare un blob e successivamente dimostrare ad altre parti che il blob è ancora disponibile e immutato. Il risultato è una rete di archiviazione che mira a combinare durabilità, resistenza alla censura e accesso verificabile, mantenendo comunque i costi alla portata dell'uso reale su larga scala.

Vanar è costruito attorno a una semplice convinzione che la maggior parte delle persone userà la blockchain solo quando smetterà di sembrare blockchain. Il progetto inquadra l'adozione come una sfida di design più che come una dimostrazione tecnica, e quella mentalità si riflette ovunque nel modo in cui parla degli utenti. Invece di chiedere alle persone di imparare prima i portafogli, cerca di far comportare la rete come un'infrastruttura invisibile sottostante le app che le persone già apprezzano, specialmente nei giochi, nell'intrattenimento e nelle esperienze digitali guidate dai brand. Questo è un tono diverso rispetto a molte catene che partono dall'ideologia, e stabilisce uno standard chiaro per Vanar, perché se la catena diventa mai confusa, lenta o costosa, infrange la propria promessa.

Plasma è costruito attorno a un'osservazione semplice: la maggior parte delle catene tratta le stablecoin come un semplice token, anche se le stablecoin sono ciò che le persone effettivamente muovono quando cercano di pagare, risparmiare o inviare denaro oltre confine. Quando una catena è ottimizzata per il trading e le app generali, i pagamenti diventano un pensiero secondario e l'esperienza lo dimostra. Plasma capovolge l'ordine. Parte dal regolamento delle stablecoin come carico di lavoro principale e poi progetta il resto del sistema per far sì che quel carico di lavoro sembri normale, veloce e affidabile. L'obiettivo non è impressionare gli esperti con funzionalità intelligenti, ma rimuovere le piccole frizioni che impediscono il comportamento del denaro reale di scalare.

Dusk è iniziato nel duemiladiciotto con un obiettivo più ristretto rispetto alla maggior parte delle catene e quindi più difficile da falsificare nel tempo, che è quello di essere il livello base per la finanza regolamentata che rispetta ancora la privacy. L'idea non è fare del segreto il punto di forza, ma rendere la riservatezza un'impostazione normale per l'attività finanziaria, mantenendo la rete compatibile con il tipo di supervisione che i sistemi regolamentati non possono evitare. Quando leggi Dusk attraverso questa lente, il progetto smette di sembrare una piattaforma generica di smart contract e inizia a sembrare un tentativo di ricostruire l'infrastruttura del mercato in modo che la programmabilità onchain non costringa automaticamente ogni partecipante a rivelare tutto ciò che fa.

Walrus è più facile da comprendere se smetti di pensarlo come un'altra app e inizi a vederlo come un pezzo di infrastruttura che cerca di far sembrare i grandi dati nativi nel mondo onchain. La maggior parte delle blockchain è eccellente nel registrare piccoli fatti come bilanci, permessi e transizioni di stato, ma diventano goffe e costose nel momento in cui chiedi loro di trasportare contenuti di dimensioni del mondo reale. Walrus si inserisce in quel gap trattando i grandi file come oggetti di prima classe e dando agli sviluppatori un modo per ancorare quegli oggetti alla logica onchain senza infilare il contenuto stesso nella catena.

Dusk è stata fondata nel 2018 con un'ambizione molto specifica che sembra ancora rara nel crypto oggi. Non sta cercando di essere una catena di gioco generale dove qualsiasi cosa può lanciarsi e il caos seleziona i vincitori dai perdenti. Sta cercando di diventare un'infrastruttura su cui la finanza regolamentata può effettivamente vivere, il che significa che la privacy non è una funzione opzionale e la conformità non è un pensiero postumo. Il progetto è costruito attorno alla tensione che ogni sistema finanziario serio porta con sé, che è la necessità di mantenere le informazioni sensibili riservate pur essendo in grado di dimostrare che le regole sono state seguite. Questa è la lente attraverso cui tutto in Dusk ha più senso, dal modo in cui funzionano le transazioni al modo in cui le applicazioni devono essere costruite.