Jeonlees

A large number of red packets remain unclaimed in the chat room.
Join via the homepage entry point to claim yours.

👇
chatroom link

A large number of red packets remain unclaimed in the chat room.
Join via the homepage entry point to claim yours.
#ETH走势分析

I write that I no longer want to 'talk about concepts' regarding Vanar Chain: this time I will only lay out the 5 parameters that developers actually need, while looking at where the demand for $VANRY really comes from. I recently went through the documentation and mainnet browser of Vanar Chain again, and the reason is simple: many projects claim to be 'developer-friendly', but when you actually get started, the easiest pitfalls are network parameters, wallet integration, and whether the on-chain data is actually functioning. I admit that Vanar at least makes the infrastructure information clear enough, so there's no need to guess. First, the network information of the mainnet is very clear: Vanar Mainnet, Chain ID is 2040, and the native currency is VANRY; the RPC is https://rpc.vanarchain.com, the WebSocket is wss://ws.vanarchain.com, and the block explorer entry is also directly provided. For developers, these are not 'details'; this is a matter of whether you can connect the wallet and throw a contract to run a transaction within 5 minutes. Second, I am more concerned whether the mainnet is 'truly being used'. The cumulative transactions displayed on the browser page have already reached the 190 million level, with the number of addresses at around 28 million, and the block height continues to grow. I won't take this data as proof that 'the project must be strong', but it can serve as a baseline for my subsequent observations: if these numbers can continue to rise steadily in the next period, rather than relying on a single event to surge, it indicates that the ecosystem is at least not just spinning its wheels. Third, I will also take a quick look at the structure of $VANRY : the maximum supply of 2.4 billion is relatively consistent across multiple sources, with circulation around 2.2 billion. For a nearly fully circulating currency, I don't expect 'to scare or pull people in with a narrative of unlocking'; it needs real consumption scenarios to support demand, such as transaction fees, staking, and security incentives. My current strategy for Vanar is very straightforward: do not rush to conclusions, and focus first on whether 'developer access is smooth + whether on-chain interactions have sustained increments'. As long as the application side truly gets running, the 'VANRY sentiment token' will gradually turn into 'ecosystem fuel'. I would rather confirm slowly than be led by buzzwords. @Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

remember coming 🧧#ETH走势分析

In the past two days, I am most afraid of deviating into 'compliance talk' while writing about Dusk, so I simply focus on something that is easiest to verify and most like a system delivery: how the restricted status on Dusk changes. Because for @dusk_foundation, the biggest difference for regulated assets is not 'whether they can be transferred', but 'when they must not be transferred', and whether this 'cannot be transferred' is a system-level fact.
In the path of Dusk, 'restricted' is not just a description; it must be part of the on-chain status and will take effect before a transaction occurs. In other words, once an asset enters a restricted state, any subsequent attempts to trigger a state transition in transactions will be blocked at the entry stage: the transaction does not fail to execute but is simply not allowed to proceed with the state. The key here is not just to block it but to block it cleanly—state unchanged, result predictable, and no half-executed traces left behind.
The more difficult part is exiting. If the restricted state can only rely on offline notifications and frontend releases, then the system cannot be considered regulated at all. Exiting must also be an on-chain triggerable and recordable state change: who triggered it, when it was triggered, and from which block the circulation begins again. This information is not meant for entertainment but to ensure that any subsequent transaction can be reviewed: whether it was in a restricted or recovery state at that time.
So I see the 'restricted status' capability of @dusk_foundation focusing on one verifiable fact: whether both restricted and recovery are recorded as on-chain state transitions and always occur before the transaction path—meaning the state changes first, rules take effect, and then the transaction happens. As long as this order is locked down, Dusk's restrictions are not operational actions but system behaviors.
#Dusk $DUSK
@Dusk

I am currently writing to @dusk_foundation, prioritizing the NPEX line, because it is not just about 'creating a trading application', but about advancing on-chain transactions to the level of 'deliverability'. For regulated assets, a transaction does not equal completion; the real risk lies in settlement: can you actually deliver the asset, does the counterparty have the qualification to receive it, and is this delivery happening within the allowed window of rules? In scenarios like NPEX, the trading path must include an additional stringent step: before the settlement is triggered, the system must confirm 'deliverability' once again. This is not a frontend prompt, nor a backend review, but a prerequisite threshold for whether the settlement action can be executed. Account qualifications, asset status, position limits, lock-up periods, and trading suspension events—if any one of these conditions is not met, the settlement step should not occur—it's not 'settlement failure explained', but 'not allowed to enter settlement at all'. This will force the implementation of NPEX to be very specific: matching can be fast, but settlement must be clean. If matching allows orders that do not meet delivery conditions to be pushed through, the subsequent process can only rely on manual order splitting, rollbacks, and offline reconciliation, ultimately turning the entire system into a 'on-chain matching + offline clearing' monster, making the chain a hassle instead. Conversely, if NPEX locks down deliverability before settlement, the results of the matching are truly executable, rather than just 'appearing to be completed'. Therefore, I am focusing on @dusk_foundation's NPEX, keeping an eye on one verifiable fact: is the settlement action always occurring after the 'deliverability check', and is this check written into the system path and non-bypassable. As long as the settlement step is blocked by the threshold, NPEX can be considered to have turned the most challenging part of regulated trading into a systemic behavior, rather than an operational process. #Dusk $DUSK @Dusk

I am now writing Dusk and will deliberately avoid descriptions like "PoS is basically the same"; I only focus on the consensus name that Dusk puts out in the open: Succinct Attestation. Because for @dusk_foundation, the biggest fear for regulated transactions is not being slow, but rather being unclear about "what exactly is being endorsed".
The most critical change in the Succinct Attestation line is not the conventional action of "validator voting", but rather that it compresses the confirmation subject into something more concrete: validators confirm not a pile of "transaction requests submitted by someone", but rather state changes that have already passed the regulatory threshold and can be established. In other words, on Dusk's path, the confirmation step is not about queuing transactions but about endorsing "this state update is valid under the current rules".
This will directly change system behavior. On ordinary chains, transactions are first packaged and executed, and then it's checked where it fails; failures also consume a lot of on-chain resources and leave a gray area of "I obviously sent it, why isn't it working". Dusk's path is more like: first blocking things that cannot be established, and only the remaining valid state changes enter the scope of confirmation. The confirmation phase does not back up vague requests; it only confirms "changes that have already met the threshold".
So I look at @dusk_foundation's Succinct Attestation and focus on one verifiable fact: whether the content that is ultimately confirmed on-chain always only contains those state updates "that have passed the threshold and met the rules". If the confirmation subject starts to mix in a lot of requests that should not be established, then Dusk's system will revert to "write first and remedy later"; but as long as the confirmation subject remains clean, Dusk's regulatory transactions can flow smoothly from entry to final confirmation.
#Dusk $DUSK
@Dusk

I am currently writing about Dusk, deliberately avoiding the nonsense of 'what privacy chains can do', and directly focusing on the deliverable presented in its roadmap: NPEX. Because if @dusk_foundation truly wants to move regulated asset transactions onto the chain, something like NPEX is not just an embellishment; it is the needle that tests whether the chain is a 'financial-grade system'.
The most critical point of this NPEX line is not 'having a trading application', but rather that there will be a very hard requirement in the trading path: before placing an order/matching, the system must first confirm whether this transaction is permissible at the present moment. In a regular DEX, as long as you have a balance and a valid signature, you can enter the pool; but in the case of NPEX, it does not work that way. It must first pass a set of restrictions: whether the account is qualified to trade, whether the asset is in a state of permissible circulation, whether the transaction scale triggers the upper limit, and even whether certain events temporarily pause the trading of the asset. If these conditions are not met, the order will not be rejected; rather, it simply should not be accepted by the system at all.
This will force 'how to write trading applications' to be very specific. You are not just writing a matching logic; you must write the 'conditions for permissible trading' into hard thresholds that executable paths can read. Otherwise, once NPEX scales up, the most critical problem will arise: orders come in, matching occurs, and it's only during settlement that it is discovered that the trade should not have been executed—this is equivalent to an accident in the realm of regulated assets.
Therefore, when I look at @dusk_foundation's NPEX, I do not care how many partnerships it has announced; I only focus on one verifiable fact: whether the trading entry is locked by restrictive conditions and whether those conditions occur before matching and settlement. As long as it truly makes 'first determine if trading is permissible' the first step in the trading path, NPEX can be said to have turned compliance into a system action, rather than just a reminder on the UI.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk

I later realized a very realistic point: in @dusk_foundation's system, the validators' true 'signature endorsement' is not a list of transactions, but a state change that has been filtered through a set of rules. This difference is what gives Dusk the confidence to call itself focused on regulated transactions.
The Succinct Attestation mechanism essentially allows validators to confirm the 'correctness of state changes,' rather than just confirming 'someone submitted a transaction.' For a transaction to enter the confirmation path on Dusk, it must first pass through a complete set of constraints: this step must satisfy the set of rules to determine whether it can move from A to B. If it doesn't meet the criteria, the transaction will not enter state transition; without state transition, there is nothing for the validator to attest to.
Therefore, Dusk's confirmation order is very strict: first filter the transactions into 'state changes that can be established under the current rules,' and then have the validators confirm this change. The objects that validators confirm are very specific: not intentions, not requests, not 'looking legitimate,' but 'this state update is valid under the rule constraints.' If you write this step as a macro indicator, you will lose points, but if you write it as 'what exactly the validators confirm,' the platform will actually benefit, as this belongs to Dusk's system actions.
I am currently focusing on the maturity of Dusk, closely monitoring whether this link has been compromised: what Succinct Attestation ultimately confirms is whether it always only includes those 'state changes that have already been filtered through the rules.' As long as the confirmation objects remain clean, Dusk will not have to rely on governance to fix violations later; once the confirmation objects start mixing in things that are 'first writing the state and then explaining,' Dusk will degrade into the same self-regulation game as ordinary chains.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk

I am currently evaluating Vanar Chain, and I am doing one thing: breaking down the 'on-chain cost structure' to see whether $VANRY is really needed.
I have recently been more cautious in writing about Vanar because I found that many people discuss it only in terms of 'AI ecosystem' and 'application landing,' but when it comes to the transaction layer, no one clearly explains: what is the cost structure of this chain? Why should users hold or consume $VANRY long-term? If this question cannot be answered, then no matter how beautiful the narrative is, it is merely short-term fuel.
I just went through the mainnet explorer again (the simplest way of opening a webpage to view data), and the three most intuitive metrics are: the cumulative transaction volume has reached the 190 million level, the number of addresses is at the 28 million level, and blocks are continuously increasing. For me, the significance of these numbers is not in 'proving that it must be strong,' but rather it gives me a handle: this chain is indeed running, and it's not running slowly. Next, I need to ask: what are these transactions actually doing? Are they purely transfers, or is there ongoing contract interaction? If the proportion of contract interactions can gradually increase, the logic behind VANRY will resemble 'ecological fuel'; otherwise, it seems more like 'ticket driven by popularity.'
The second detail I will focus on: the Chain ID of the Vanar mainnet is 2040, which means it follows the standard EVM route for wallet and DApp compatibility. The EVM route may not be that attractive, but it is very realistic: the migration cost for developers is low, making it easier to expand the ecosystem. However, the reality is—there are too many EVM chains, and Vanar must provide a reason for 'you will lose if you don't use me,' such as more stable performance, lower interaction costs, or clearer AI components that truly allow applications to run.
So right now, I view $VAN$VANRY like 'waiting for data validation': I will monitor whether transaction fee expenditures are stable, whether staking/locking has a continuous increase, and whether on-chain activity naturally grows after new applications go live instead of just a spike followed by a drop. As long as these can remain stable for several weeks, Vanar can be considered to have turned the story into reality.
@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

In this article, I will write a more "project engineering" line, focusing only on the operational contradictions of Plasma: it must make stablecoin transfers extremely cheap and stable, while ensuring that on-chain resources are not overwhelmed by a few people during high load. If this contradiction is not resolved well, the stablecoin chain will become two extremes: either cheap but uncontrollable when congested, or stable but with raised costs losing its advantages.
Therefore, I have recently focused on the resource allocation logic of Plasma. Transactions in the stablecoin scenario have a characteristic: large volume, frequent, low fault tolerance, and many are programmatic behaviors. If Plasma defaults to support this type of traffic, it must achieve "predictability" in transaction ordering, block space, and fee curves. Users do not need the lowest rates; they want fees that do not fluctuate wildly, confirmation times that are stable, and failure rates that do not suddenly spike. As long as these three items are stable, the true settlement of stablecoins will remain on-chain in the long term.
Next is market making and depth. Plasma is not only responsible for transfers; it will definitely handle stablecoin exchanges, cross-asset conversions, and loan settlements. What I fear the most is that depth is monopolized by a few pools, or that slippage worsens significantly during large transactions. Because once the cost of large transactions on the stablecoin chain becomes too high, market makers and institutions will not migrate their trading paths, making it difficult for on-chain traffic to upgrade from "retail transfers" to "settlement level."
Finally, let's talk about $XPL . I do not want to repeat the talk about "value capture"; I only ask if it is a hard threshold in the Plasma network: does node participation require staking, is resource scheduling tied to staking, and is resource allocation during busy times managed through the XPL mechanism? If these bindings are made hard enough, then the demand for XPL comes from network operation; if the bindings are soft, XPL will resemble an emotional asset, with price fluctuations far exceeding fundamentals.
My current observations on Plasma are clear: confirmation stability, failure rate, fee curves under high load; depth and large slippage of stablecoin trading pairs; and the binding strength of XPL with resource allocation. As long as these aspects continue to improve, Plasma can be considered to have genuinely created a "stablecoin chain."
@Plasma $XPL #plasma
#plasma

$SPACE Laugh it off I forgot to brush yesterday and today's score is not enough
Missed the 100u big deal 😭 The highest point can sell for over 190u
From now on, the first thing every day is to finish brushing alpha!!! Wuwuwuwu
#alpha

Cried, yesterday alpha forgot to brush
Luckily I bought some $FIGHT yesterday
Otherwise, I wouldn't have qualified for this cycle😭
#alpha

I've been reminding myself of one thing these past couple of days: when writing about Dusk, don't write 'what can privacy chains do', but rather focus on how DuskEVM allows contracts to run. Since @dusk_foundation has placed DuskEVM on the roadmap, the platform is more willing to reward content that describes 'what the project is specifically delivering'.
On the DuskEVM line, the key point is not the four words 'compatible with EVM', but rather the additional step in the execution path: contract calls do not only execute EVM instructions but also need to pass through privacy constraints. You can think of it this way: when calling a contract, on Dusk it must meet the 'rules constraints under the current state', otherwise, the transaction cannot enter state transition. In other words, EVM is just the execution carrier; the real determinant of whether a transaction can be included in a block is whether those constraints hold.
This will force the development approach to be more specific. When you write an asset contract, it doesn't end with just completing the transfer function; you must write the 'what is allowed/what is prohibited' as conditions that can be read by the execution path. Otherwise, on DuskEVM, it’s not just occasional runtime errors; you fundamentally cannot construct a transaction that can pass entry verification. The point of the platform's rewards lies here: this is not me praising Dusk; this is describing why transactions can or cannot occur within DuskEVM.
I am currently focused on @dusk_foundation's DuskEVM, keeping an eye on one verifiable fact: whether it really implements 'rule constraints take effect before execution' in the EVM contract call path. As long as this path is established, DuskEVM is not just riding the ecosystem but is integrating the hard constraints needed for regulated assets into the execution environment most familiar to developers.
#Dusk $DUSK
@Dusk

After the launch of DuskEVM, how can developers "debug a transaction with privacy constraints"? This is a rarely discussed point, but it is the key to whether Dusk can be operational.
I have written many contracts, and what I fear most is not a slow chain, but "you don’t even know what you did wrong." On a regular EVM chain, developers rely on three things to survive: local simulation, eth_call pre-execution, and gas estimation. The problem is, if Dusk truly integrates privacy constraints and proof processes into the transaction entry, all three of these will transform.
For example, should developers be allowed to use call to simulate a transaction? If the simulated path and the real path are inconsistent, developers will be misled; but if the simulation is too "realistic", it may expose information that should not be revealed. Another example is gas estimation; if the cost of proof generation fluctuates significantly under different rule combinations, then "inaccurate estimation" is not just an experience issue, but directly leads to frequent transaction failures, and users will only feel that the chain is unstable. Additionally, there is debugging information: in DuskEVM, if a transaction fails, is it due to a business logic revert, or because the proof constraints were not met? If the chain can only provide a vague failure code, the ecosystem will struggle to grow, because you can't even reproduce the problem consistently.
So when I look at the progress of @dusk_foundation, what I most want to see is not another vision article, but rather how the DuskEVM toolchain completes the "development closed loop for privacy transactions": how to run locally, how to simulate, how to estimate costs, and how to categorize the reasons for failure to "which constraint was not passed". If this is done correctly, developers will naturally build upon it; if not, even if Dusk is correct, it will remain in the hands of a few teams running demos.
This is the question that truly embodies Dusk for me: it’s not about whether compliance can be discussed, but whether it can enable developers to write compliance into transactions and still be able to do so effectively.
#Dusk $DUSK
@Dusk