Recently, I re-examined Dusk's staking and emission logic and found that the real critical issue is not narrative packaging, but a very practical economic dilemma.

Dusk's design framework is as follows: a total supply of 1 billion tokens, with the first 500 million as initial supply, and the remaining 500 million distributed over a long period as validator staking rewards. This is quite reasonable during the project launch phase—relying on new token issuance to support the validator network. The problem arises in the later stages. If the actual transaction fees on the chain cannot sustain growth, then staking yields essentially become "token issuance subsidies," which is a long-term drain on token price and holder sentiment.

Looking at the specific staking parameters, a threshold of 1000 DUSK and a maturation period of 2 epochs (about 4320 blocks, roughly 12 hours assuming 10 seconds per block). Low thresholds and quick in-and-out can indeed expand the validator base, but the negative effects are also obvious—if yields depend entirely on emissions, participants will inevitably adopt a short-term mindset, and the network's security and stability will overly rely on the continued market sentiment. This is an invisible risk.

Therefore, I now judge whether Dusk can transition from a hype to sustainability mainly by monitoring these two hard indicators: first, whether the proportion of on-chain transaction fees in staking yields can continue to increase; second, whether ecological application interactions can form stable growth rather than a spike during activity periods followed by a sharp decline.

No matter how fast the technical progress of DuskEVM, it cannot solve this issue. Without real business scenarios capable of generating ongoing fees, the entire token incentive structure will sooner or later be pushed into a dead end of "subsidy-driven" development. I can't predict whether the project can break out of this, but this is indeed the most core indicator worth validating with data at this stage.