Brothers, let me talk about something I've been thinking about recently, it's not a call for orders, but a real doubt.

The DUST mechanism design of $NIGHT is quite ingenious — holding NIGHT automatically generates DUST, DUST is used to pay on-chain transaction fees, it is non-transferable, will decay, cannot be speculated, only can be used.

This design solves a practical problem: it allows developers to pay transaction fees on behalf of users, so ordinary users do not need to hold tokens when interacting with applications, lowering the barriers to use. This is a real pain point in the on-chain experience in 2026, and doing it well is valuable.

But there’s one thing I can’t figure out, I’ll let the knowledgeable brothers think about it.

The generation rate of DUST and the decay rate are determined by protocol parameters and can be adjusted through governance voting.

Here’s the problem: who is voting?

@MidnightNetwork The mainnet has just started, most NIGHT is still in the unlocking period, how many active addresses truly participate in on-chain governance? Early governance is highly concentrated in the hands of a few people, this has happened in almost all DAO projects, and Midnight is likely no exception.

If the generation rate of DUST is lowered by governance voting, the network resources that users holding NIGHT can actually use will decrease. Who holds the control of this parameter early on is something I think is worth paying attention to, more than any technical details written in the white paper.

Decentralization of governance is a process, not something that can be achieved just by going live. How long this process will take, Midnight has not given a timeline.

Thinking clearly about this issue before holding positions is more useful than staring at K lines. #night