Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
KaspaDollar whitepaper is now live! Please find it under the /whitepaper page on our website. Do note, that this is a working document that is subject to both internal and external review!
As part of this release we also want to talk about why KaspaDollar is not just a stablecoin and why $KAS is the only collateral possible. That is, in this post we want to go through some of the decisions that have been taken so far and the thinking behind them, because a few of them look strange from the outside until you see what they protect.
KaspaDollar is not a business. There is no planned revenue that will be extracted from the community and there is neither any developer fee. The deployed contracts will not have an admin key and no central form of control at all. Our goal is to design it into a self-sustaining system that inherits the properties of the base layer itself. Therefore, it should be considered a product designed for the people of $KAS, owned by $KAS miners, if anything.
Let’s backtrack a little bit to understand the motivations behind this.
Why do we want decentralization and why do we resist censorship? Because there are countless examples of centralized entities abusing their power in their own favor. When it comes to stablecoins we can see this concretely with freezes. A concrete example is when Circle blacklisted the Tornado Cash contracts in 2022, every depositor in those pools had their USDC frozen with them. In addition, Tether blacklisted more than a billion dollars of USDT in 2025 alone. One can argue that most of the cases are in line with a criminal investigation but what prevents a centralized issuer from freezing without proper cause? What is the point of a decentralized PoW if a centralized stablecoin captures the majority of the TVL. Some might argue that this is why we should just stick to $KAS. But $KAS comes with a volatility not every holder can accept. Many people want to offload profits or losses into a stable asset knowing that the value of $KSD will with near certainty equal the same value tomorrow.
Everyone in the Kaspa movement has their own reasons for being here, but we believe and hope that all of them are rooted in the core crypto ethos.
Kaspa is a PoW-backed L1 with capabilities that exceed any other PoW network, and it is PoW for a reason, because this is the consensus mechanism that has proven to be the most decentralized way of agreeing on chain.
Some people point out that mining hashrate on Kaspa, and on Bitcoin, is too concentrated in a handful of pools or miners. That is true, but the same is true of staking on PoS networks like Ethereum with one major difference. The difference is that PoW is actual hardware, an ASIC machine that took years and a tremendous amount of capital to develop that can do exactly one thing, mine $KAS.
Attacking a PoW network with hardware you bought means attacking the only income your hardware will ever have. A PoS attacker’s stake can be slashed only for misbehavior the protocol can prove, and voting a false price or censoring a transaction is not one of them. Therefore in a PoS system, the stake could simply be retargeted.
Now the reason why $KSD only uses $KAS for its collateral is to bind it to the success and health of the network. The price that $KSD runs on is voted by the miners themselves. So the only party that can attack $KSD is a large miner, and that miner would be doing it in public, against the asset that pays for its hardware. Therefore, the more of Kaspa’s economy settles in $KSD, the more an attack on $KSD is an attack on $KAS itself, and the reward would be in the very asset the attack is destroying.
Some have suggested that we should use gold or $ETH as collateral. If we did this, $KSD would actually become more likely to be attacked and exploited. With $ETH or gold the reward would be paid in an asset the attack does not impact. It would also mean that the collateral is no longer on Kaspa at all. Gold on Kaspa is only a claim on gold that is held by a custodian, and $ETH on Kaspa is a claim on $ETH secured by PoS.
$KAS is the only asset that exists natively on the base layer, with no issuer and no bridge in front of it. So ironically, through less diversification we get a stronger system, one that is closer to the security properties of $KAS itself.
However, we can also not ignore the fact that centralized issuance is needed for adoption. That is why KaspaDollar also creates the infrastructure that any future issuer on Kaspa will need, including centralized ones like @circle or @tether if they ever come. The biggest piece is the oracle itself, a price feed voted by the miners that any Kaspa protocol can read, whether it is a lending market or a DEX. Simply put, providing technical rails that are built and verified by the core team can have a very beneficial stamp of approval, which could make issuance and building on Kaspa less daunting.
Consider what Kaspa DeFi would look like if it were built on bridged stablecoins or on stablecoins that originate on an L2. A covenant on the base layer can have flawless security and still hold nothing more than a claim on money that lives somewhere else, with completely different security properties.
If the dollar inside it is bridged, its value depends on the bridge’s multisig. If the dollar comes from an L2, its value depends on that L2’s sequencer and the L2’s security. If the L2 has any form of centralized control, then the security of Kaspa’s DeFi inherits the security of an external system, that can be completely disjoint from the original sought properties.
Therefore, an important statement is that: the base layer implementation is only as secure as the weakest asset within the protocol. $KSD is the only dollar on Kaspa where both the collateral and the price are secured by the same miners that secure $KAS, and that is what makes it the foundation for Kaspa DeFi.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Thank you for this tweet, @KaspaSilver. I am going to address your concerns, piece by piece.
Concern 1 & 2: "Missing whitepaper, and no R&D"
I understand your point about the missing whitepaper. This is still in progress as it needs to be written in a certain way and have the necessary proofs, statements in order to bring the value that a whitepaper does. It is totally acceptable to be wary of donating before you see a concrete spec. The reasoning behind opening the fundraiser before those are finished is primarily for brand awareness, the fundraiser progress so far has exceeded my expectations.
It is not the case that no R&D has been done earlier, in fact I have been working on the stablecoin initiative for the last 6 months already, where primarily focus has been on communicating with centralized issuers. Unfortunately, centralized issuers are resistant to deploying on Kaspa for primarily two reasons:
1. because of the lack of anticipated volume.
2. because the needed infrastructure is missing.
I, of course disagree with this statement as there can be no volume without DeFi, hence it is a chicken and egg problem. The implementation of @KaspaDollar, would therefore not be "just a stablecoin from scratch" but a:
1. fully decentralized stablecoin
2. build the needed infrastructure that centralized issuers need in order to operate
3. bring the first needed volume in order to validate Kaspa's DeFi potential that is needed for issuers to bring their assets.
Therefore, @KaspaDollar is indirectly an effort to bring USDC/USDT onchain.
Concern 3: "Decentralized stablecoins are problematic."
Decentralized stablecoins utilize a decentralized asset as collateral, this means they are backed by whatever the collateral is most usually traded against, which for now is the U.S dollar.
When it comes to regulation the situation is complex, however we can break it down:
1. Looking at EU, MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114), Recital 22 it is stated that: "where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner without any intermediary, they should not fall within the scope of this Regulation" and "where crypto-assets have no identifiable issuer, they should not fall within the scope of Title II, III or IV".
2. Looking at, US, GENIUS Act (signed July 18 2025), Sec. 2 defines a "payment stablecoin" as a digital asset whose issuer is obligated to convert or redeem it for a fixed amount of monetary value. In our case, @KaspaDollar has no identifiable issuer.
3. The freeze/blacklist requirement you are referring to is Sec. 4(a)(6) of the same act, and it applies to "permitted payment stablecoin issuers", i.e. centralized issuers like USDT and USDC.
4. Freeze and blacklist functions exist because a company holds USD in a bank and is a regulated entity. There is neither a bank account behind @KaspaDollar nor a company behind it. There will be no developer fees and no upgradability. This will also apply to the oracle itself.
Concern 4: "Decentralized stablecoins are hard to list on exchanges"
The current market situation says the contrary:
1. DAI/USDS is listed on Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Bybit, MEXC, Kraken etc. and has no freeze functionality. Now it is true that they have the possibility to enable this, but at its current stage it is still unfreezable yet listed on most major CEX's.
But more importantly, a CEX listing is not the goal for @KaspaDollar and having this expectation, misses the point what it is for.
DAI was not built to be traded on Binance, it existed so that Ethereum DeFi had a stable value of account that lived onchain. Following its creation, everything else was built on top of it.
On Kaspa, we have the same gap today:
1. there is no dollar on L1,
2. no stable pair for a DEX,
3. no stable asset to lend or borrow against,
4. no way to take profit without leaving the chain,
5. no reason for anyone to build any of that.
Every DeFi primitive starts with a stable unit of account, and there is not going to be one from a centralized issuer without having seen some kind of evidence that sufficient volume is to be expected. Therefore, @KaspaDollar is the first one to take on that risk.
So the order that I believe in is not: "get USDT, then DeFi". It is "create a decentralized native stablecoin, build the DeFi, show the volume, and then the issuers come".
$KAS I just want to share why I personally have not donated to KaspaDollar yet and hoping I can get some more information.
First off I think its not good to ask for funding without a whitepaper or much more guidance on how things will work. To me it appears as give us the money and then we will research and figure out how achievable the goals we want.
Secondly, I truly believe we do not have time to be spending our resources on a brand new from scratch stablecoin. To me all efforts should be spent on getting native L1 support for already established USDT and USDC stablecoins.
Third, from what I can tell the goal is to make this stablecoin trustless. This means there is no way to freeze or blacklist addresses. This is a problem. Stablecoins are backed by the dollar and typically require those features in order to prevent money laundering and follow regulation. This means that if development moves forward for this we will not see this come to life without a few years of wait time. The reason for this is because this stablecoin would not be easily listed on popular exchanges. The only way to obtain it will be via DEXs which for Kaspa as far as I am aware we do not have proper DEXs if they do exist they lack accessibility.
These are my thoughts. Please if you have more information surrounding this leave them below.
今天是 10 月 31 日。2008 年的今天,比特币白皮书发布。2022 年的今天,Kaspa 的 DagKnight 白皮书首次发布。Kapsa 激进的排放节奏所带来的安全预算问题,是未来最大的挑战。闯过这一关,Kaspa 才算真正成年。
还有一点,就是就算发生了51%攻击,其实也不致命,这也和PoS的逻辑不同。PoS一旦占据了足够份额,那么攻击者可以零成本保持这些份额。而PoW的算力攻击是要持续成本的,你一停电就没了,别人的矿机加足马力开动你的优势也未必保持得住。
一个例子是门罗币,XMR的案例同时证明了两件事。
门罗币早就切换到尾部发行机制,就是固定区块奖励不再减半,试图解决所谓的安全预算问题。但是它还是被Qubic成功发动了51%攻击。
第一件事是:所谓尾部发行并不能预防安全危机,升值和壮大才是预防攻击的最佳途径,玩别的花活没有实质意义。
第二件事是:被51%攻击后也没咋样。短时间内门罗币经历了25%的下跌,但很快就修复了,甚至在几个月后就达到了ATH。
再过两次减半区块奖励还有0.78B呢,即便比特币停在10万美金,这仍然是可观的数字,急什么?
所谓%0.1、%0.2的,你应该是用PoS的逻辑在计算,但比特币的安全性其实和比特币的总量无关,而是和一次51%能够实际撬动的利益有关。51%不仅要耗费电费,更需要准备大量矿机和矿场设施,但收益其实是有限的,如果要双花你也要准备好比特币,然后可以钻漏洞的地方也有限,目前看来最大的盈利点应该是预先开好空单,利用衍生品市场盈利,但这些市场你要赚一票大的基本上都得KYC去合规市场,而且真攻击完也许这些市场会紧急暂停,你未必取得出钱来。
哪怕比特币上涨缓慢,在很长一段时期内,51%仍是在经济上非理性的选择。比特币挖矿防的就是这个。至于说某个组织完全不考虑经济收益,就是纯想搞破坏,那么至少在两三次减半之内,能够短时期内调用如此规模电力和矿机的组织也起码得是国家级的势力才够。那么它攻击比特币图什么?如果金将军想要搅乱国际金融市场,他不如直接往中国丢一枚核弹。如果比特币已经成为国家级恐怖组织的攻击对象,那么说明它在国际金融体系中已经有举足轻重的地位了,那样的话应该早就不必担心所谓安全预算问题了。
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
i’ll do everything in my power on the technical side to help this initiative move forward and navigate any protocol-level obstacles along the way.
on a personal note, Alex has a rare mix of technical depth, bizdev talent and deep Kaspa knowledge. i honestly can’t think of anyone better suited to lead it, and i really appreciate him taking this on
Today we are introducing KaspaDollar, an initiative led by core developer @asaefstroem to build the first decentralized stablecoin on the $KAS network.
The developments around @kccforum and the Toccata hardfork have considerably widened what Kaspa is capable of. Capability alone, however, does not make an ecosystem. Decentralized finance requires a unit of account that holds its value, and until Kaspa has a stablecoin of its own, every application built on it will remain dependent on assets issued elsewhere.
The design we intend to follow is the decentralized, overcollateralized stablecoin: a pattern whose security properties have been examined and tested across the industry for the better part of a decade. With the support of the core team, we consider the conditions right to bring it to Kaspa.
Realizing this requires development, an independent audit, further research, and the operational work of taking a protocol from specification to production. To fund it, we are opening a fundraiser with a target of 5,000,000 KAS.
Contributions are made directly to the fundraising address published on the website. Should the target not be reached by 1 January 2027, every contribution will be returned to the address from which it was sent.
Up until that point, this account will share the plans, details and progress of the work as it develops.
🧐
Today we are introducing KaspaDollar, an initiative led by core developer @asaefstroem to build the first decentralized stablecoin on the $KAS network.
The developments around @kccforum and the Toccata hardfork have considerably widened what Kaspa is capable of. Capability alone, however, does not make an ecosystem. Decentralized finance requires a unit of account that holds its value, and until Kaspa has a stablecoin of its own, every application built on it will remain dependent on assets issued elsewhere.
The design we intend to follow is the decentralized, overcollateralized stablecoin: a pattern whose security properties have been examined and tested across the industry for the better part of a decade. With the support of the core team, we consider the conditions right to bring it to Kaspa.
Realizing this requires development, an independent audit, further research, and the operational work of taking a protocol from specification to production. To fund it, we are opening a fundraiser with a target of 5,000,000 KAS.
Contributions are made directly to the fundraising address published on the website. Should the target not be reached by 1 January 2027, every contribution will be returned to the address from which it was sent.
Up until that point, this account will share the plans, details and progress of the work as it develops.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Greetings $KAS. KCC-1, KCC-2 and KCC-20 are now Final, meaning they are ready for full adoption across the ecosystem.
We invite Kaspa builders to join the public KCC channel to ask questions, get support, discuss implementations and share what you build.
Come build with us.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Published KIP 22 to help Kaspa users better protect their funds from future quantum attackers by keeping public keys hidden until spending
github.com/kaspanet/kips/blo…
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Replying to @aKaspamaxi
i believe we can get to a stable (and secure) testnet this year
Kaspa 有一个特殊的地址,叫销毁地址(Burn Address)。这个地址在数学上不存在对应的私钥,这也就意味着,即使量子计算有突破性进展,也不可能破解这个地址。最近,有人每天从 Kraken 取 100 $kas 扔到销毁地址去销毁。kaspa.stream/addresses/kaspa…
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Replying to @snljdl
it’s very easy to implement in kaspa with p2sh addresses, the challenge is classic/wide-spread wallet support. i bet some wallets support it. where would you want it supported? let’s get it rolling!
worth mentioning that kcc20 has builtin native support for hashed addresses (via kcc2)
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
From a theoretical perspective, why might Bitcoin be unable to sustain miners purely through transaction fees, while Kaspa potentially could? $Kaspa
Given Bitcoin’s current market capitalization and scale, as block subsidies continue to decline, the network will eventually need to rely increasingly on transaction fees to fund its security budget.
Assume that maintaining an adequate level of hash-rate security requires miners to earn at least $5 million per day. For comparison, Bitcoin currently produces roughly 450 BTC per day, worth approximately $37 million at the assumed BTC price.
Bitcoin produces one block roughly every 10 minutes, and each block can accommodate approximately 2,000–3,000 transactions. Using 3,000 transactions per block, the maximum daily transaction capacity would be:
6 × 24 × 3,000 = 432,000 transactions per day
That is approximately 432,000 transactions per day.
If the network needed to generate $5 million per day entirely from transaction fees, the average fee per transaction would have to be:
$5,000,000 ÷ 432,000 ≈ $11.5 per transaction
A transaction fee of around $11.5 is expensive enough to discourage many transactions, making it difficult for such a fee level to become the normal long-term equilibrium.
Kaspa is fundamentally different.
Kaspa currently operates at approximately 10 blocks per second, and if each block supports around 300 transactions, its theoretical maximum daily transaction capacity would be:
10 × 3,600 × 24 × 300 = 259,200,000 transactions per day
That is approximately 259 million transactions per day.
Even if Kaspa eventually required the same $5 million per day in transaction-fee revenue to maintain its security budget, the required average fee would be only:
$5,000,000 ÷ 259,200,000 ≈ $0.02 per transaction
That is an extremely low transaction fee.
Bitcoin’s roughly 10-minute block interval, combined with its limited block capacity, restricts its base-layer transaction throughput to roughly 432,000 transactions per day under these assumptions. This effectively creates a hard throughput constraint, making it very difficult for Bitcoin to generate a sufficiently large security budget from transaction fees alone without requiring relatively high fees per transaction.
Kaspa, by contrast, benefits from its high BPS and much greater scalability. With a theoretical capacity of approximately 259 million transactions per day, it could theoretically generate a substantial fee-based security budget while keeping individual transaction fees very low.
Therefore, from a theoretical model perspective, Bitcoin’s limited base-layer throughput makes a fee-only security model difficult to sustain at low transaction costs, whereas Kaspa’s high-BPS, high-throughput architecture gives it a natural structural advantage in supporting a fee-funded security budget while maintaining very low fees per transaction.
In a word,Bitcoin’s long-term security model depends on extracting high economic value from scarce blockspace, while Kaspa can theoretically fund the same security budget by spreading very small fees across vastly greater transaction volume.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
$KAS
1/ Read this if you use @KasWare_Wallet 🚩
I reported 5 security vulnerabilities to their team weeks ago. 3 got fixed. 2 remain open today, Sep 25. This is a factual timeline of what happened and why I'm posting it!
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
Tic-tac-toe is live on Kaspa testnet: the first vprog, a verifiable program with real execution and real settlement, running since yesterday.
You can play it here: vprogs-tt.izio.fr/
(Requires private key and some testnet funds)
We still need to review and merge a stack of PRs, however this is already a working POC. UI/UX was never a priority; the frontend can be enhanced or built separately
I'm gonna work on mdBook covering the parts of the system I consider meaningful and a workshop on vprogs and building apps on top
For Devs: this is the invitation. Play the game, read the code, build your own vprog.
Game code: github.com/biryukovmaxim/vpr…
vprogs framework: github.com/kaspanet/vprogs/t…
当年我在水木清华 BBS 看到有人发帖招聘就投了简历,后来面试我的人就是廖雪峰,我以为会很难,结果什么也没问,跟我聊了两句就通过了 😅。再后来我去了他的公司,接手了他的代码,读他的代码是一种享受,可以说我是一行一行学习他的代码成长的。后来我才知道他那时候为什么不怎么写公司业务了,因为上班是没前途的 😂 他一直在建立自己的长线品牌,靠着各种教程网站的收入早就财务自由了。当然,很多人不知道的是他还是比特币大佬,教程网站的收入只是毛毛雨 😅
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
dotk 2.0.0 is here!
It brings subnames as well as the first open-source release of the sdks. 👇
Subnames can be created by a name holder (for free), like other records they can be updated on the name page.
They are one way (safety/security): name -> addr.
KRC-20 incident explained in simple terms 👇
Based on the information currently circulating, an attacker appears to have exploited the Kasplex KRC-20 indexing/accounting layer, creating balances that should never have existed.
Those tokens could then be bridged into L2 environments and used against real liquidity, reportedly affecting pools involving $ZEAL and $NACHO.
Think of it like this:
Kaspa L1 = the bank vault
KRC-20 indexer = the accounting software
The vault wasn’t broken into.
The accounting system was tricked into recognizing money that wasn’t actually there.
That distinction matters.
KRC-20 token balances are reconstructed off-chain by indexers. They are not balances enforced directly by Kaspa’s consensus rules.
So, based on what we know right now:
✅ No evidence that Kaspa L1 consensus was compromised
✅ No indication that native kaspa:native itself was hacked
❌ The issue appears to be inside the KRC-20 accounting/indexing layer
⚠️ Bridged representations of affected KRC-20 assets may therefore have backing problems
Until the teams publish the final post-mortem, I would personally:
• avoid bridging KRC-20 assets
• avoid providing liquidity to affected ZEAL/NACHO L2 pools
• treat KRC-20 balances cautiously until the canonical indexer state is confirmed
There’s also a bigger lesson here.
The ecosystem was already moving toward KCC20 / native, L1-enforced assets, with plans to gradually retire KRC-20 routes.
This incident shows why that distinction matters.
Kaspa didn’t fail.
An application/accounting layer built on top of Kaspa appears to have failed.
Those are two very different things.
Waiting for the official post-mortem before drawing harder conclusions.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
We are currently investigating a critical exploit affecting the Kasplex KRC20 indexer.
Based on what we know so far, the exploit allows an attacker to create unauthorized KRC20 balances, which were then bridged to Igra and Kasplex L2 and used to drain liquidity pools, including ZEAL and NACHO pools.
We strongly advise everyone not to buy or interact with KRC20 tokens until the issue is resolved, as the exploit may affect any KRC20 token.
We are in contact with the relevant teams and are working to block the exploiter from moving the remaining funds.
More details will be shared as soon as we complete our investigation.
Michael ✨ star.k retweeted
just a gentle reminder that krc20 is not kaspa L1, it only travels over L1 txs as data carriers, but the interpretation of krc20 state is done purely offchain just like any other non-zk based solution. this is why covenants were developed for kaspa L1 with kcc20 built on top of them for native assets (note: kcc20 spec is still in draft)
为什么 Kaspa 要采用这种快速的排放的方案?这也是 Kaspa 这个项目争议最多的地方。今天做了一个相关地研究和分析,中文: buykas.com/topic/5.KaspaEmis…,英文: buykas.com/en/topic/5.KaspaE…























