On the privacy chain Dusk, the DUSK token plays two very different roles. One is the "gas" of the network—each privacy computation and proof generation consumes it; the other is an "entry ticket" to participate in confidential governance—if you want to influence key decisions behind the scenes, you need to use it to vote.

This design is quite thought-provoking. As gas fees, the demand for DUSK depends entirely on how complex on-chain activities are. The busier the chain and the more intensive the privacy computations, the higher the consumption. As a governance tool, it might be used to handle sensitive matters—updating compliance rules, integrating modules like Citadel—these require confidential voting decisions.

The clever part is this: the more you use the network, the faster you spend your tokens, but your voting power in governance might actually weaken. From another perspective, this encourages long-term holding and staking, creating a self-sustaining cycle.

But the problem is also evident. If early on, on-chain interactions are not active, the demand for gas can't be sustained, and the token's value support may appear fragile. The real test is the first batch of governance proposals—do they involve core interest distribution? Are they genuine power struggles? Only then can we see if the governance token truly has value.

Here's an interesting topic: for a financial chain, who should governance power favor? The technical developers who control the code's fate, the node operators who maintain network stability, or the major asset issuers who have invested the most? What’s your view?