2026-01-13 11:29:58

The most common reason blockchain projects fail is often not because of poor technology or lack of grand narratives. Where does the real problem lie? Whitepapers and actual data tell two completely different stories.

Take the Dusk Network project as an example. Its focus on privacy-compliant RWA (Real-World Asset) public chain concepts is indeed impressive—zero-knowledge proofs, regulatory friendliness, next-generation financial infrastructure, all sound high-end. But when you dig into on-chain data, trouble arises.

Here's the data: As of January 2026, the top five holders of DUSK tokens control 67.72% of the total supply. The largest single holder owns 21.21%, the second 15.58%, and the third 15%. Just these three addresses together account for over 51%, which theoretically gives them complete control over network consensus.

How does this holding structure compare within the entire decentralized ecosystem? A comparison makes it clear. While Ethereum also has whale wallets and exchange cold wallets, the top ten addresses combined hold only about 20% of the circulating supply, with the rest scattered across millions of addresses. Bitcoin is even more extreme; the largest holder owns only a few hundred thousand BTC, with a tiny percentage of the total supply.

In contrast, Dusk’s nearly 70% concentration is approaching the level of some centralized exchange platform tokens. What's the difference? Exchange tokens are inherently centralized, and investors are well aware of this—they buy for dividends and trading fee discounts, not expecting decentralization. But Dusk positions itself as a public chain infrastructure and aims to provide securities tokenization services for institutional clients. This holding structure's risks are obvious.

The most immediate risk is price manipulation. Any of the top five holders dumping a few million DUSK could overwhelm market liquidity. Currently, DUSK’s daily trading volume is only $39.3 million, which cannot support large sell-offs. Once the chips loosen, the consequences are predictable.

DUSK-0,35%

ETH4,91%

BTC3,78%

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.

18 Likes

Reward
18
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CodeSmellHunter

· 21h ago

Compared to the white paper and on-chain data, it directly falls apart. 67% concentration still dares to boast about decentralization, which is just outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

MoonlightGamer

· 01-13 11:59

Here is the translation: Once again, the same old trick. The white paper is full of grandiose claims, but a quick check on the chain shows it's all bubbles. Dusk's 67% concentration is basically a centralized coin with a different skin, and they even want to build RWA infrastructure—laughable. --- No need for 51% attacks; these whales can just dump the market to scare off retail investors. A daily trading volume of only 39.3 million can't support that at all. --- I'm just wondering, do institutions really dare to put their assets on this thing? Where's the risk awareness? --- Having over 51% in the top three addresses is still pretending to be decentralized? Isn't this just a different way of doing a private placement coin? --- Compared to ETH and BTC, Dusk's holding structure is simply tragic. No wonder no one touches it. --- The key point is, people know that exchange tokens are centralized, but Dusk claims to be a public chain to deceive institutions. This move is really ruthless.

View OriginalReply0

mev_me_maybe

· 01-13 11:55

It's the same old trick again, whitepapers hyping up projects, on-chain data exposing the truth. 67% concentration—still dare to call it decentralization? Laughable. I've seen many projects like this, hyped up aggressively in the beginning, but once you dig into the data, the true nature is revealed. DUSK's trading volume dares to play with RWA? Insufficient liquidity, easily smashed through. So, when evaluating projects, look at the on-chain data, don't be fooled by concepts. With the top five players controlling the market, the risk is huge. Exchange tokens are inherently centralized, but even public chains are like this? I wouldn't touch it. Another "grand narrative" project, but in reality, just a whale's cash machine. This kind of ownership structure, a big holder dumping can ruin everything. 39.3 million daily trading volume can't handle that at all. It seems now project teams have learned that if the technology isn't great, it doesn't matter; the story just has to be told smoothly. But in the end, it still can't escape the test of data.

View OriginalReply0

TokenDustCollector

· 01-13 11:50

Uh, it's the same old story of whitepapers vs. reality. 67% concentration is really outrageous. Solved the case. Dusk basically is a private equity fund disguised as a public chain. Why dare to compare itself to ETH's decentralization? 39.3 million yen trading volume and still want to play securities tokenization? A single whale's sell order can break through it. Hilarious. The most disgusting part of these projects is that they talk a big game with concepts, but when you check the data, it immediately exposes them. Next time, before listening to a whitepaper, check the distribution of token holder addresses first. But I recommend everyone verify on-chain themselves, don't just rely on what I say.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeJumper

· 01-13 11:44

67% concentration and still dare to boast about decentralization? Isn't that nonsense? The top five whales can crash the market with a single breath. Where's the promised infrastructure?

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractPhobia

· 01-13 11:42

A 67% concentration still dares to boast about decentralization—aren't they just wolves in sheep's clothing?

View OriginalReply0

ApeEscapeArtist

· 01-13 11:42

67% concentration still dares to talk about decentralization, isn't this just a private equity fund disguised as a public chain?

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainArchaeologist

· 01-13 11:34

67% concentration and still have the nerve to talk about decentralization? Isn't this just centralized coins in disguise? Honestly, the white paper's hype is impressive, but on-chain data is the real truth. This round of DUSK is overly hyped with concept packaging; the fundamentals are easily pierced.

View OriginalReply0