Лизайэй Парселлс

速報：もし私が次に100倍になるものが、別のドッグコインではなく、目立つ場所に隠れていて、アザラシのような形をしているとしたら？

はい、そう言いました。あなたがポンプとダンプを追いかける間に、@Walrus 🦭/acc でまったく大きな出来事が起こっているのです。6か月後には、初期の信奉者が天才のように見えるかもしれません。
誰も気づいていない80億ドルの問題
今、あなたがこの文章を読んでいる間にも、何十億ドルもの資金がNFTにロックされ、明日には消え去る可能性があります。
ハッキングでも盗難でもない。ただ……消えただけ。
なぜなら、あなたが買った高価なBAYC？あなたがマイントしたAIアート？そのメタデータはバージニア州の誰かのAWSサーバー上に存在しています。その請求書が支払われなかったら、あなたの「分散型」資産は機能しないリンクになってしまうのです。

NPEXは他のブロックチェーンと提携したわけではない。
彼らは訴訟を起こされる心配のない唯一のブロックチェーンと提携した。

誰も語っていないことだが、@Dusk がNPEX（完全に規制されたオランダ証券取引所）とChainlinkとの提携を発表したとき、彼らが祝ったのは「提携」ではなかった。彼らは機関投資家のためのパブリックブロックチェーンの夢の終焉を発表していたのだ。

考えてみよう。ライセンスを持つ証券取引所は、イーサリアム上に証券を掲載できない。そこでは、すべてのヘッジファンドがすべての取引を確認できるからだ。コンプライアンスが後回しになるようなチェーンを使うことはできない。規制当局が実際に承認したプライバシーが必要なのだ。

21Xは史上初のEU DLT-TSSライセンスを取得しました。

次に彼らがしたことはご存知ですか？ブロックチェーンインフラとして@Dusk を選んだのです。
なぜこれがまったく狂っているのかを説明しましょう。
DLT-TSSライセンスは、ヨーロッパでトークン化証券を発行・決済するための規制上の許可です。株式。債券。ファンド。数十億規模の実際の金融商品。JPEGやガバナンストークンではありません。規制された実際の証券です。

このライセンスを取得することは、ヨーロッパの規制当局に、あなたの技術が保管基準、決済要件、投資家保護法を満たしていることを証明したことを意味します。これは単なる承認ではありません。企業はこの認可を得るために数年を費やします。

Every smart contract on Ethereum is broke.
It can't pay gas. Can't charge fees directly. Can't run without someone manually triggering it and paying the bill.
@Dusk looked at that and asked: "What if contracts had money?"

The Economic Protocol is the answer, and it's genuinely wild.
Smart contracts on Dusk can: earn money by charging fees, spend money by paying gas, and operate autonomously as "Autocontracts" without external funding.
This isn't theoretical. It's live on mainnet right now.
For tokenized securities on STOX platform (phased rollout 2026), this changes everything. A tokenized bond automatically pays gas for interest payments. A real estate token charges management fees and covers its own compliance execution costs. Everything self-sustaining.
For DuskPay (MiCA-compliant payments launching 2026), payment contracts monetize services while covering infrastructure costs. Multi-party settlements execute automatically. No external wallets needed.

$DUSK built this through modular architecture: DuskDS for settlement with ZK validation and 10-second finality. DuskEVM for Ethereum compatibility with privacy. DuskVM for confidential Rust contracts. Economic Protocol for financial autonomy.
Daylight Testnet proved it. DuskEVM Testnet lets developers experiment with it.
Here's what this unlocks: Contracts that generate revenue, pay their own operational costs, and run indefinitely without external funding. Autonomous business models that can't exist on Ethereum, Solana, or any chain without this capability.
For developers: new monetization strategies impossible elsewhere.
For institutions: automated cost structures mirroring traditional finance while operating on blockchain.
When smart contracts go from broke dependents to autonomous economic agents, the entire playbook changes.

Dusk didn't just upgrade smart contracts. They gave them bank accounts, business models, and financial independence.
The mainnet is live. The capability is operational.
What happens when contracts become richer than their creators?
We're about to find out.
#dusk

Most people think censorship resistance is about transactions. That’s only half the story. The real power lies in deciding whether data can quietly disappear.

In traditional systems, data deletion is invisible. A server goes down, a provider changes policy, a region enforces restrictions — and suddenly files are gone. Even in decentralized systems, this problem often hides behind technical promises that don’t hold up under pressure. If enough nodes stop serving data, availability collapses.
Walrus approaches this problem differently by making data survival a measurable condition, not an assumption.
Instead of trusting that storage providers will continue hosting data, Walrus defines availability in protocol terms. Data is split, encoded, and distributed in a way that requires only a threshold of fragments to reconstruct it. This means no single party — and no small group — can unilaterally decide to erase data by going offline.
What makes this approach attention-worthy is accountability. In Walrus, the absence of data is provable. If availability drops below protocol guarantees, the failure is visible on-chain. This shifts censorship resistance from ideology to enforcement. Data doesn’t survive because someone believes in decentralization — it survives because the system detects and penalizes failure.
This has consequences beyond technical design. It changes the power dynamic around data ownership. Users no longer rely on a provider’s goodwill or uptime reputation. They rely on cryptographic verification and economic enforcement. If data disappears, there is a clear signal that something broke, and consequences follow.
This matters for archives, public datasets, cultural records, and long-lived digital assets. In many cases, censorship doesn’t arrive as a ban — it arrives as neglect. Walrus directly addresses that quiet failure mode.

Operating on Sui, Walrus uses the chain as a coordination and verification layer rather than a storage sink. Proofs live on-chain, while the data itself remains distributed and reconstructable. This separation allows Walrus to scale without sacrificing visibility into failures.
The $WAL token ties this system together. Storage providers stake value to participate, meaning data loss is no longer free. When availability is enforced economically, censorship becomes expensive instead of convenient.
Walrus doesn’t claim to solve censorship by ideology. It solves it by design. That difference is easy to overlook — until data actually matters.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus $SUI