2026-01-22 03:20:18

On the privacy chain Dusk, the DUSK token plays two very different roles. One is the "gas" of the network—each privacy computation and proof generation consumes it; the other is an "entry ticket" to participate in confidential governance—if you want to influence key decisions behind the scenes, you need to use it to vote.

This design is quite thought-provoking. As gas fees, the demand for DUSK depends entirely on how complex on-chain activities are. The busier the chain and the more intensive the privacy computations, the higher the consumption. As a governance tool, it might be used to handle sensitive matters—updating compliance rules, integrating modules like Citadel—these require confidential voting decisions.

The clever part is this: the more you use the network, the faster you spend your tokens, but your voting power in governance might actually weaken. From another perspective, this encourages long-term holding and staking, creating a self-sustaining cycle.

But the problem is also evident. If early on, on-chain interactions are not active, the demand for gas can't be sustained, and the token's value support may appear fragile. The real test is the first batch of governance proposals—do they involve core interest distribution? Are they genuine power struggles? Only then can we see if the governance token truly has value.

Here's an interesting topic: for a financial chain, who should governance power favor? The technical developers who control the code's fate, the node operators who maintain network stability, or the major asset issuers who have invested the most? What’s your view?

DUSK28,97%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainTherapist

· 01-24 01:46

It's the old trick of gas fees plus governance tokens again, but this reverse mechanism is quite clever— the more you use it, the weaker your voting power becomes. Brilliant!

View OriginalReply0

GetRichLeek

· 01-22 03:50

This design still has some substance. The dual roles part indeed played a clever move— the more it's used, the weaker the voice becomes. This logic is also brilliant, a typical reverse incentive. But to be honest, the early inactivity is truly frightening. If the Gas demand can't be sustained, DUSK will become purely a governance token. That thing is most easily manipulated by whales to dump, and we, the retail investors, understand that best. As for the issue of governance rights, I think in the end, capital still has the final say haha. No matter how talented the developers are, they can't top a check from a wealthy person. I'm now just waiting for the first batch of proposals to see whether it's real power or just a false facade.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 01-22 03:50

Basically, it's a dilemma. The more you use it, the more you lose. The more you hold, the greater your say. This logic is a bit twisted.

View OriginalReply0

ApeWithNoChain

· 01-22 03:42

The dual-token role design is indeed excellent, but the logic behind it is a bit mysterious... The more you use it, the weaker the power becomes? It feels like it's just encouraging ordinary people to hold tokens and watch.

View OriginalReply0

TokenSleuth

· 01-22 03:41

This design is indeed quite clever; the more you use it, the weaker the power becomes. Brilliant.

View OriginalReply0

just_here_for_vibes

· 01-22 03:32

This dual-role design is pretty awesome; the more you use it, the more you lose, and the longer you hold, the stronger it gets... Feels like a psychological game.

View OriginalReply0

MEVSandwichVictim

· 01-22 03:23

This dual-role design looks clever, but frankly, it's still a typical "vote with your feet and you'll become poor" routine... Spending tokens on the network actually reduces your say, so how can people be willing to accept this logic? In the early stages, if no one uses it, gas fees can't be sustained, and tokens become worthless. Governance power ends up concentrated in the hands of those big players who are reluctant to spend money, ultimately turning into a power game. The real issue is whether the first proposals will genuinely involve profit sharing; otherwise, governance tokens are no different from likes on a community forum.

View OriginalReply0