Taniya-Umar

@Plasma Stablecoins have been drifting from a trading convenience into something closer to infrastructure. When Bloomberg, citing Artemis Analytics, put 2025 stablecoin transaction value at roughly $33 trillion, it read less like a “crypto headline” and more like a payments story that regulators and banks can’t ignore. Visa has echoed that shift, describing stablecoin settlement as a growing line of work, even while conceding that everyday merchant acceptance is still not “at scale.”

Policy is a big reason the topic feels louder now. The GENIUS Act was signed into U.S. law on July 18, 2025, creating a federal framework for payment stablecoins and forcing practical questions—what backs the coin, how transparent reserves are, and how compliance obligations are handled—into the foreground. Rules don’t automatically create trust, but they do make pilots easier to justify inside large organizations that previously treated stablecoins as “someone else’s risk.”

Plasma L1 is built for that in-between moment: stablecoins are widely used, yet moving them can still feel like operating a device rather than sending money. Plasma narrows the scope to settlement, stays EVM-compatible, and tries to remove a familiar friction point—having to hold a separate gas token just to transfer a dollar-pegged asset. In its documentation, Plasma describes “zero-fee” USD₮ transfers via a managed relayer that sponsors fees for straightforward transfers, with identity-aware controls meant to reduce abuse and keep the sponsorship scoped to simple payments.

That focus maps to the boring workflows that quietly run commerce: payroll, B2B invoices, supplier payments, and remittances where the main request is “please arrive today and reconcile cleanly.” Plasma also leans into the reality that a lot of liquidity still sits on Bitcoin; reporting has described the project as Bitcoin-adjacent while keeping Ethereum-like programmability, and ecosystem partners have documented official bridging paths used at launch. If you’ve noticed the recent rise of “stablecoin chains” as a category, Plasma is basically a case study in why that label exists: people want settlement networks that optimize for reliability, predictable costs, and straightforward integration rather than trying to be everything at once.

There are early signals of distribution, too. Trust Wallet’s integration notes emphasize near-zero fees and the ability to pay network fees using stablecoins, which makes the network easier to try without prior setup. Plasma’s reported $20 million Series A adds another datapoint that investors are treating settlement-focused networks as infrastructure, not just speculation venues. The harder part is what Plasma can’t code away: if you optimize around a dominant stablecoin, you inherit issuer controls and policy constraints, including freezes and screening, and you’ll be judged on boring metrics like uptime, reversibility policies, and compliance behavior.

$XPL #Plasma @Plasma #plasma

@Walrus 🦭/acc #walrus $WAL
‎There’s a particular unease that follows a big outage. Not panic—just the realization that a lot of everyday life is balanced on systems most of us never see. When AWS’s US-EAST-1 stumbled on October 20, 2025, it wasn’t just engineers who felt it—regular people did, too, when everyday apps and “smart” devices suddenly stopped cooperating. Reuters described workers getting knocked offline worldwide, and AWS noted some services still had backlogs even after normal operations returned.
‎
‎Cloudflare’s June 12, 2025 outage carried a similar lesson. A failure in the storage infrastructure behind Workers KV cascaded into a long list of products, and Cloudflare was direct about the uncomfortable part: Workers KV had become a critical dependency for configuration, authentication, and asset delivery across those services. When shared dependencies fail, the failure pattern isn’t neat. It’s wide.

‎‎That’s the backdrop for why “data availability” is suddenly back in the conversation. In blockchain systems, availability is the difference between “anyone can verify this later” and “please trust me that the data existed.” Ethereum’s Dencun upgrade, activated March 13, 2024, introduced ephemeral data blobs via EIP-4844 so rollups can publish the data others need to check their work without forcing it to live forever on the base chain. It’s technical plumbing, but it also resets expectations about what must be published for others to verify, and what can safely expire.
‎
‎#Walrus steps into this moment with a focus on large, unstructured files—media, datasets, model artifacts—things that don’t fit comfortably on a traditional blockchain. Mysten Labs describes Walrus as taking a file (a “blob”), encoding it into many smaller fragments (“slivers”) using a two-dimensional erasure coding scheme called Red Stuff, and distributing those slivers across storage nodes. The claim is refreshingly concrete: the original blob can be reconstructed even when up to two-thirds of the slivers are missing.
‎
‎But availability isn’t only a math problem. It’s a human one. Even with clever coding, an operator can be tempted to take fees and quietly drop data once attention moves on. Walrus tries to address that by turning custody into something you can point at: Proof of Availability. In Walrus’s description, a successful write produces an onchain certificate on Sui that creates a public record of data custody—essentially a receipt that a quorum accepted responsibility for the encoded pieces for the paid storage duration.
‎
‎Once you have that receipt, incentives can attach to it. Walrus ties rewards to WAL staking, and it uses delegated staking so people who don’t run nodes can still steer security toward operators they trust. Its token docs also call out a practical issue: short-term stake hopping forces data reassignment and costly migration, so Walrus proposes penalty fees for short-term stake shifts and, once live, slashing for low-performance behavior.
‎
‎Even the “boring” parts—pricing and audits—are treated as security-critical. The protocol document describes nodes submitting prices each epoch and selecting the 66.67th percentile by stake weight, rather than letting a few outliers set the market. And the Walrus research literature emphasizes continuous challenge mechanisms to deter nodes from pretending to store data, instead of relying on unrealistically friendly network assumptions.
‎
‎Zooming out, this fits with a broader drift toward “publish data, verify later,” and toward techniques like data availability sampling that let lightweight clients gain confidence that data is published without downloading everything. When that becomes normal, storage stops being a background feature. It becomes the plumbing every other promise depends on. Walrus isn’t a guarantee of perfect uptime. It’s an attempt to make availability measurable—and therefore worth defending.

@Dusk #dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Untuk waktu yang lama, "blockchain untuk keuangan" terasa seperti dua percakapan yang terjadi di ruangan yang berbeda. Para pembangun terobsesi dengan throughput dan arsitektur cerdas. Operator pasar peduli pada hal-hal yang lebih tenang: jejak audit, penyelesaian yang jelas, dan tidak terbangun dengan perubahan aturan yang mengubah produk kemarin menjadi kewajiban hari ini. Apa yang berbeda belakangan ini adalah bahwa infrastruktur mulai lebih penting daripada slogan. Stablecoin, misalnya, bukan lagi sekadar mainan perdagangan. Visa telah menjalankan pilot penyelesaian stablecoin dan secara terbuka berbicara tentang memperluas jalur ini, meskipun masih kecil dibandingkan dengan total volume pembayaran.

@Dusk #dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Beberapa tahun yang lalu, “tokenisasi aset” terdengar seperti ide yang khusus yang akan Anda dengar di sebuah konferensi dan kemudian dilupakan dalam penerbangan pulang. Belakangan ini terasa berbeda. Pembicaraannya kurang tentang kebaruan dan lebih tentang pipa: bagaimana kepemilikan seharusnya bekerja ketika pasar mengharapkan kecepatan seperti perangkat lunak, dan bagaimana catatan seharusnya bertahan ketika seseorang akhirnya bertanya, “Tunjukkan kepada saya dengan tepat apa yang terjadi, dan kapan.”

Bagian dari pergeseran ini adalah bahwa uang nyata telah mulai bergerak. Produk Treasury AS yang ter-tokenisasi tidak mencolok, tetapi mereka sudah dikenal, banyak dimiliki, dan membosankan dengan cara yang terbaik. Mereka telah menjadi bukti praktis bahwa representasi digital dari aset nyata bisa lebih dari sekadar demo, dengan beberapa laporan mencatat pertumbuhan tajam melalui 2024 dan 2025. Ketika posisi Treasury dapat diterbitkan dalam kemasan digital dan kemudian digunakan sebagai jaminan atau dipindahkan dengan pencatatan yang lebih jelas dan cepat, lebih mudah untuk memahami mengapa institusi sekarang memperhatikan daripada lima tahun yang lalu.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #walrus
I still think the internet teaches humility better than almost any other system. One day everything feels sturdy, and the next day a “small” change in a place you don’t control turns into a long, quiet hour of dashboards blinking red. The last stretch of 2025 made that feeling pretty common. On October 20, AWS had a major disruption that traced back to DNS resolution issues around DynamoDB endpoints in us-east-1, and it rippled across a lot of services people treat as background infrastructure. Nine days later, Microsoft restored Azure after a global outage that lasted more than eight hours, linked to a configuration change affecting Azure Front Door. Then on November 18, Cloudflare had a multi-hour outage triggered by an internal bug that helped take down a chunk of the modern web for a while.

Those incidents weren’t “storage outages,” exactly. But they changed how people talk about reliability. When enough parts of the stack can wobble at once—DNS, edge delivery, identity systems, API gateways—availability stops being an abstract metric and starts feeling like a daily requirement we’ve been taking for granted. At the same time, we’re asking more of storage than we used to. We’re training and serving AI systems that generate and consume huge files. We’re building onchain apps that want receipts, provenance, and tamper-evidence. We’re collaborating across tools that assume the past is always retrievable, instantly.

#Walrus lands right in that moment with a specific promise: keep large, unstructured “blobs” available over time, even when the machines holding them are unreliable. Mysten Labs positioned the public testnet (October 2024) as a way to prove the network in a global, decentralized setting, and Walrus announced its public mainnet launch on March 27, 2025.

When someone asks what “reliability” means in a decentralized storage protocol, it helps to strip it down. First: you need redundancy, but not the wasteful kind where you just copy everything many times and hope for the best. Second: you need constant verification, because data that was safely stored yesterday is not automatically safe next month. Walrus is interesting because it treats both as first-class design problems, not afterthoughts.

The core technical idea is its encoding scheme, Red Stuff. Instead of storing whole copies of a file, Walrus breaks a blob into pieces and adds recovery pieces using a two-dimensional erasure code. The result is that the system can reconstruct the original blob even if a meaningful fraction of storage nodes are offline or gone. The Walrus research paper claims Red Stuff reaches strong security with about a 4.5× replication factor, and it can “self-heal” efficiently—repairing lost pieces with bandwidth closer to the amount of data actually lost, rather than rereading and rewriting the whole blob. That detail sounds nerdy, but it’s really about long-term cost and realism. Churn is normal in open networks. Repair has to be routine, not heroic.

Verification is the other half. #Walrus uses what it calls a Proof of Availability: an onchain certificate on Sui that acts like a public record of custody for a stored blob. Nodes stake WAL tokens and earn rewards when they continue to meet availability expectations; failing to do so carries penalties. I find this framing persuasive because it admits something people sometimes avoid saying out loud: reliability is partly technical, and partly behavioral. If the incentives don’t match the promise, the promise becomes a story you tell yourself.

Time also gets treated as something concrete rather than vague. Walrus runs in epochs. On mainnet, an epoch is two weeks, and storage can be purchased for up to 53 epochs into the future. This matters because it forces clarity about what “available over time” means. It’s not forever by default. It’s a commitment with a duration, plus a mechanism for handling committee changes and node turnover without turning every transition into downtime—a challenge the Walrus paper discusses directly.

None of this magically makes decentralized storage “better” than big cloud providers. It shifts the tradeoffs. You gain verifiability and a different failure model, but you inherit new questions: how operator sets evolve, how economics behave under stress, and what real-world usage teaches that whitepapers can’t. Still, after a year when outages reminded everyone how concentrated the internet has become, it makes sense that people are paying closer attention to protocols that try to measure availability, incentivize it, and repair it—out in the open, where the assumptions are harder to hide.

@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #walrus
Kebanyakan hari, ketika sesuatu rusak secara online, itu bukan bagian uangnya. Itu adalah tautan ke video yang dulu menjelaskan hal itu. Itu adalah gambar yang tidak mau dimuat. Itu adalah dataset yang bergantung pada tim kecil, tiba-tiba di balik paywall atau diam-diam dihapus. Kita semua telah belajar untuk hidup dengan perasaan rapuh itu, bahkan jika kita tidak menyebutnya dengan nama. Dan itu adalah salah satu alasan mengapa Walrus mulai muncul dalam percakapan Web3 yang serius: ia memperlakukan penyimpanan sebagai masalah inti, bukan pencarian sampingan.

@Dusk #dusk #Dusk $DUSK
Ada perubahan halus dalam cara keuangan tradisional berbicara tentang kripto belakangan ini. Beberapa tahun yang lalu pertanyaannya adalah, “Apakah ini semua nyata?” Sekarang lebih seperti, “Jika ini akan menyentuh pasar yang nyata, bagaimana kita membuatnya berperilaku seperti infrastruktur yang nyata?” Orang-orang yang mendorong pertanyaan itu ke depan biasanya tidak mencoba memulai sebuah revolusi. Mereka adalah operator. Mereka khawatir tentang kepastian penyelesaian, jejak audit, perlindungan data, dan apa yang terjadi ketika seorang regulator bertanya siapa yang tahu apa, dan kapan.