NijamulHoque

Cześć rodzino Square. Tym razem chcę porozmawiać o modelu zarządzania Dusk, a nie o prywatności czy zgodności.
W wielu projektach blockchainowych zarządzanie traktowane jest jako warstwa społeczna. Propozycje, głosowania i dyskusje się odbywają, ale często są daleko od tego, jak system faktycznie działa na co dzień.
@Dusk podchodzi do tego inaczej. Zarządzanie w DuskFoundation jest zaprojektowane, aby bezpośrednio wspierać sposób, w jaki działa protokół, a nie tylko sposób, w jaki omawiane są decyzje. Zmiany parametrów, dostosowania zasad i ewolucja protokołu są oczekiwanymi elementami systemu, a nie wyjątkowymi wydarzeniami. To ma znaczenie, ponieważ regulowane i instytucjonalne środowiska nie mogą polegać na nieformalnej koordynacji. Decyzje muszą być możliwe do śledzenia. Zmiany muszą być wyjaśnialne. A aktualizacje muszą przebiegać zgodnie z jasnymi procesami zamiast ad-hoc konsensusu.

Hello Square fam.
আজ Dusk নিয়ে কথা বলবো একদম আলাদা জায়গা থেকে TRANSACTION STRUCTURE নিয়ে।
বেশিরভাগ ব্লকচেইন একটা সিদ্ধান্ত নেয় শুরুতেই। সব transaction public হবে, অথবা সব private হবে।
Dusk-এই binary চিন্তাটাই ভাঙে।Dusk-এ transaction মানে শুধু value transfer না।এটা context অনুযায়ী behaviour।প্রোটোকল দুইটা আলাদা transaction flow রাখে—একটা যেখানে privacy দরকার, আরেকটা যেখানে transparency দরকার।

এর মানে কী?
সব use case একরকম না। কিছু জায়গায় user confidentiality জরুরি। আবার কিছু জায়গায় rules, audits, বা public visibility দরকার।
Dusk-developer-দের বাধ্য করে না একটাই privacy mode ব্যবহার করতে। তারা ঠিক করতে পারে কোন interaction-এ কী level of disclosure লাগবে।
এটা developer experience-এর দিক থেকেও গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। কারণ app logic আর compliance logic আলাদা করা যায়। Privacy পরে জোড়া দেওয়া feature না। Transparency ও default চাপিয়ে দেওয়া হয় না।
এই separation ভবিষ্যতে কাজে আসে যেখানে একই system-এ users, institutions, আর regulators সবাই interact করে। সবাই একই rules-এ খেলছে, কিন্তু সবাইকে একইভাবে expose হতে হচ্ছে না।
এটা flashy headline না। কিন্তু এটা real systems বানানোর জন্য দরকারি design decision।
@Dusk
#dusk $DUSK

Blockchains assume users want either full transparency or full anonymity. That assumption breaks down in regulated finance.
DuskNetwork is designed for a different reality.
Some participants must follow rules, audits, and legal obligations. @Dusk enables confidentiality without removing accountability. Transactions stay private by default, but verification remains possible when required. This is not about hiding activity. It’s about making on-chain systems usable where compliance is non-negotiable. That design choice limits hype. But it expands where blockchain can actually operate.
$DUSK #dusk

Hello Square fam. Today I want to talk about a design choice that rarely shows up in marketing.
Invisible stability.
Many projects optimize for what users can immediately see. Speed charts. Cost comparisons. Headline numbers. These matter early, but they do not define long-term infrastructure quality. Walrus focuses on what users should not notice.

No constant adjustments. No frequent breaking changes. No need for apps to react to internal protocol shifts.
When infrastructure works well, users barely think about it. Applications run. Builders ship. Systems behave consistently.
This kind of stability is hard to showcase, but it compounds over time. It builds trust. It reduces friction. It allows ecosystems to grow without constant resets. Walrus is not optimizing for attention cycles. It is optimizing for systems that stay boring in the best possible way.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #walrus

Cześć rodzino Square. Prędkość wygląda imponująco w dniu premiery. Stabilność jest testowana po przybyciu prawdziwych użytkowników.
Wiele zdecentralizowanych systemów priorytetowo traktuje prędkość i koszt. Niezawodność często jest poruszana później, po tym, jak prawdziwe użytkowanie ujawnia słabości.
Walrus odwraca tę kolejność.

Jego projekt zakłada, że awarie będą miały miejsce. Warunki sieciowe się zmieniają. Występują szczyty obciążenia. Komponenty działają niewłaściwie. Zamiast udawać, że te problemy są przypadkami skrajnymi, Walrus projektuje je z wyprzedzeniem. Wczesne wykrywanie, przewidywalne zachowanie i kontrolowane odzyskiwanie są wbudowane w system. Celem nie jest eliminacja awarii, ale sprawienie, by awaria była niezaburzająca.

Hi Square fam. Today I want to talk about a problem most decentralized infrastructure quietly creates over time.
Coordination debt.

In many networks, every upgrade, parameter change, or internal adjustment slowly pushes responsibility outward. Builders must update logic. Apps must react. Users are forced to adapt even when nothing is broken for them.Walrus takes a different stance.Instead of pushing change to the edges, Walrus absorbs complexity at the protocol level. Internal changes are handled by the system itself, not offloaded to applications or users.
This matters because real infrastructure is not static. Protocols evolve. Conditions change. But users should not need to babysit the system just to keep things working.
By minimizing coordination overhead, Walrus allows builders to focus on product logic instead of constant maintenance. For users, the experience stays predictable even as the system evolves underneath. This is not a flashy feature. But over time, it directly affects reliability, developer velocity, and trust.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #walrus

Hello Square fam.
Today I want to talk about Plasma Network and how it is being designed to handle real usage after users actually arrive.
Most blockchains look impressive before users arrive. The real test starts after that.

Where many chains struggle later
A lot of networks optimize for launch day metrics. High TPS claims, low fees in empty conditions, smooth demos.
But once real users show up, things change. Congestion appears. Execution becomes uneven. Design shortcuts start to show.
Plasma’s documentation repeatedly points toward this later phase instead of the early spotlight.

Plasma’s focus is execution under pressure
Plasma is not just about processing transactions fast. It is about keeping execution predictable when usage grows.
That means thinking about:
How state updates behave under loadHow users experience delays, not benchmarksHow systems recover instead of silently degrading
These are not flashy problems, but they are the ones users actually feel.

Why this matters long term
Most chains optimize for attention first and stability later. Plasma flips that order.
If real adoption happens, networks built with post-launch reality in mind usually survive longer. Those built mainly for early hype often need heavy redesigns later.
Plasma is paying that cost upfront.

Not A Guarantee, But A Direction
This approach does not guarantee success. Execution still matters. Competition is real. Adoption decides everything.
But Plasma is clearly designing for what comes after excitement fades. That alone separates it from many short-term narratives.
@Plasma
$XPL #Plasma

Plasma is being built for conditions that most benchmarks never capture. In early testing, many blockchains look fast and efficient because nothing meaningful is happening on the network. Real pressure only appears once usage becomes continuous and unpredictable.
What Plasma seems to focus on is not peak performance, but consistency under load. That distinction matters. A system that performs well only in ideal conditions tends to degrade quietly once real users arrive. Latency increases, costs drift, and execution becomes uneven. These issues rarely show up in promotional metrics, but they define real user experience.
Plasma approaches this problem from an execution first perspective. Instead of optimizing for headline numbers, the architecture prioritizes how transactions behave over time. Stability, ordering, and predictable execution are treated as core requirements rather than side effects.
This matters especially for applications that depend on reliable behavior rather than occasional speed. Financial systems, automated strategies, and composable protocols need environments where execution does not change unpredictably as usage grows. Plasma is positioning itself around that reality.
Adoption will ultimately decide whether this design holds up. Tooling, developer uptake, and real traffic will test these assumptions. But the direction is clear. Plasma is less concerned with looking fast in isolation and more concerned with remaining usable when conditions are no longer perfect.
That difference is subtle, but it is often what separates experimental networks from infrastructure that survives long term.

@Plasma $XPL #Plasma