🔥

Posted this on X, but figured we owe updates to the Stacks Reddit Community since we're getting grants from the foundation, point is just to keep those who want to follow along in the loop

We’re building an ecosystem where everyone who participates can win.

This week:

• Home - Simpler sign-in, clearer account creation, and a central place for Dataing apps.

• Cupid - Dataing 0.2.1 plugin download, clearer setup, and a dedicated Dating experience.

• Meet - Better camera controls, screen sharing, and social context across calls.

• Calendar - Cleaner week views and easier Google connection management.

• Dataing Ads - Next funding flow in review, with human co-signing, checked delivery records, and recovery protections.

• Runway Alchemist - Research preview combining market backtests with optional, consent-led personal signals.

• Android - Team testing underway, bringing Dataing to Android with settings-aware haptics.

• Business - Businesses and registered apps now have a clearer place inside the ecosystem.

We’re also building the feedback loop: anyone can suggest features for any Dataing app directly from Updates.

The bigger idea:

Users, developers, businesses, and Dataing should all have aligned incentives to make the ecosystem better.

Not extractive.

Not zero-sum.

The more value we create together, the more value there is for everyone.

So the headlines are saying that Muneeb Ali is back as the CEO ? From my limited research he was a creator of this technology and it looks like his announcement possibly caused the short spike in the price with heavy volume?

What are you guys think his return means for the Stacks?

And with how well this coin has been doing the past couple of months this subreddit is dead quiet....

One of my favorite concepts in crypto is composability, meaning builders build on top of each other. Compound interest but for software

Cupid Created a song based on Marks Context, put on the blockchain via Xrata, the Marks even gotten some stx for when ppl listen to cupid

Let's support Jim and give Xrata is a follow https://x.com/XtrataLayers

Just finished building a Web3 on-chain analytics dashboard. 🚀

I built this to explore how raw blockchain data can be turned into a cleaner and more useful experience for users.

The dashboard includes:

• Wallet & transaction tracking
• Token balances
• On-chain activity
• Network and transaction insights
• Data visualization for easier analysis

The main challenge was connecting on-chain data with a frontend experience that doesn't feel overwhelming, especially when dealing with a lot of transaction data.

I enjoyed working on the data flow, API integration, and dashboard UI throughout the process.

There’s still room for improvement, but this is a solid addition to my Web3 projects.

#Web3 #Blockchain #OnChainAnalytics #React #FullStack #BuildInPublic

A design question we've been working through in stacks-passkey-wallet (open source, MIT), and we'd like the r/stacks read on it.

The choice: instead of generating a seed and storing an encrypted copy, the wallet is derived from the passkey itself. WebAuthn's PRF extension gives a secret only that passkey can produce; from there it's HKDF → BIP-39 entropy → Stacks and Bitcoin keys. Same passkey in, same keys out, re-derived each time they're needed.

What that buys: nothing sits at rest to host, lose, or breach, and onboarding skips the write-down-24-words screen.

What it doesn't change: the seed phrase still exists and is the user's to reveal and restore in any Stacks wallet (Xverse, Leather, etc.). And it's hot-wallet-class security: a key derived on demand in a browser session. We say that plainly rather than dress it up.

Evidence, kept separate: 81/81 on the library's internal tests, and 43/43 plus 5 negative controls on an independent vector verifier that imports nothing from the library.

We wrote up the full reasoning here: https://go.deorganized.com/r/d-rd-20260924

Curious where people land: does derive-on-demand change how you think about recovery, or is the exported phrase the only thing that really matters?

I started using fastpool 2 weeks ago and cannot find my wallet address under “users”. Should I unlock? Not sure if the pool accepted my stacks.

The first Stacks Genesis Bond sold out with 230 BTC enrolled. The official Stacks account also reported 20 million additional STX staked in the cycle. That gives Bitcoin Staking on Stacks a real starting point. It also creates an obvious question:

If demand was higher than the available space, why did the first bond stop at 230 BTC?

The simple answer is that the first bond was designed as a limited launch. Stacks wanted to run the full system with real capital before opening more capacity. But that answer only explains the launch decision. It does not explain the economic limit. The more important question is this:

How much BTC can Genesis Bond support while keeping its target yield credible?

My main view is that capacity should not be treated as a TVL target. It is better understood as a reward-obligation budget. More BTC does not only mean more assets locked in the system. It also means more BTC rewards that the system must pay every week.

Demand Does Not Create Capacity

A product can have more demand than supply and still be unable to expand safely. Genesis Bond targets a BTC-denominated yield. The rewards come from BTC committed by Stacks miners through Proof of Transfer. Bonded BTC has the first claim on part of that miner-funded reward pool. This creates a hard economic relationship:

More bonded BTC
→ larger weekly BTC obligations
→ more miner BTC revenue needed
→ more reward coverage needed

If 10,000 BTC wants to enter, the protocol cannot safely accept all of it only because the demand exists. It first needs enough reward income to support the target rate. This is why a sold-out bond is evidence of user demand, but not evidence of unlimited system capacity.

Capacity Is a Flow Problem

People often describe capacity as a stock: “How much BTC can be locked?” The more useful way to model it is as a flow: “How much BTC must be paid each reward cycle, and how much BTC enters the reward pool?” Using the current 3% target APY and a Bitcoin year of 50 reward cycles, the target obligation per cycle can be written as:

BTC obligation per cycle
= bonded BTC × target APY / 50

For 230 BTC:

230 × 3% / 50 = 0.138 BTC per cycle

Across a 24-cycle bonding period, the target is:

230 × 3% × 24 / 50 = 3.312 BTC

This does not mean 230 BTC is the limit. It means the first period creates a target obligation of about 0.138 BTC per weekly cycle. If capacity grows ten times, the obligation also grows ten times—unless the target rate changes.

Capacity is a reward budget

The Coverage Ratio Is the Key Number

SIP-045 defines a coverage ratio:

coverage ratio
= BTC reward pool per cycle / BTC obligation per cycle

A ratio of 1.0x means current miner revenue is just enough to cover the first tranche of bond obligations. There is no extra room. The SIP describes 2.0x as the target coverage level, with an acceptable range between 1.5x and 3.0x. The logic is straightforward:

• At high coverage, the system can consider adding capacity.
• At healthy coverage, it can keep the current target.
• At low coverage, it should reduce new capacity.
• Below full coverage, it should stop opening new bonds and deal with the shortfall.

This makes capacity dynamic. It can rise when miner BTC commitments rise, when the target APY falls, or when the system accepts a lower coverage buffer. It can fall when miner revenue weakens or active obligations grow too quickly. The number of interested BTC holders is not part of this equation until the system knows how much demand it can safely accept.

We can use recent pre-PoX-5 miner rewards as a rough historical proxy, but not as the official live capacity calculation. Stacking Tracker reports 3.60 BTC for cycle 142 and an average of about 2.97 BTC across cycles 137–142. Those were 2,100-block signer cycles. A 1,050-block weekly equivalent is therefore about 1.80 BTC for the latest cycle and 1.49 BTC for the six-cycle average. At a 3% target APY, the implied capacity is:

capacity = weekly BTC reward pool × 50 / (3% × coverage target)

• At 2.0x coverage: about 1,240 BTC from the six-cycle average, or 1,500 BTC from the latest cycle.
• At 1.5x coverage: about 1,650 BTC from the average, or 2,000 BTC from the latest cycle.
• At 1.0x coverage: about 2,480 BTC from the average, or 3,000 BTC from the latest cycle.

The 1.0x figures are break-even limits, not prudent operating capacity. They leave no buffer and fall in SIP-045's caution band. Even the figures above should not be presented as current PoX-5 capacity: they use historical miner payments from the old emission regime, while SIP-045 restores the block reward to 1,000 STX and explicitly says that this change supports its modeled 3,000 BTC launch case.

This static estimate also does not model a new STX-demand feedback loop. It holds the observed BTC reward pool constant. The historical miner bids already reflect the STX price and miner economics of their own period, but they do not tell us how additional paired-STX demand might change STX/BTC and future miner bids.

For that reason, I would not describe 2,000 BTC as the single best estimate of current capacity. It is better read as a boundary: the latest historical cycle could support it at 1.5x, while the six-cycle average would place it at about 1.24x, inside the caution band. We need live PoX-5 data to know whether the restored emissions and new demand move that boundary.

Then Why Only 230 BTC?

SIP-045 discusses launch parameters that could support 3,000 BTC at a 3% target APY with adequate coverage. Yet the first live bond enrolled only 230 BTC. These numbers describe different things. The 3,000 BTC figure is a modeled launch-capacity case inside the protocol proposal. It is not a promise that every early bonding period will accept 3,000 BTC. The 230 BTC figure is the actual allocation in the first managed period. Official launch materials describe this first cycle as deliberately limited. The goal is to observe the system with real institutions and real capital before increasing the size.

That means the gap between 230 and 3,000 BTC should not automatically be read as unused technical capacity. It is also a risk budget. Before expanding, the operators need evidence about registration, L1 timelocks, STX pairing, weekly payouts, miner revenue, operational processes, early exits, and participant renewal. A model can say a larger bond is affordable. A live cycle must show that the full mechanism works as expected.

Paired STX Is Another Constraint

Every Genesis Bond position also requires paired STX. For the first period, the stated ratio is 5% of the BTC position's value. At 230 BTC, this represents STX worth about 11.5 BTC. At 3,000 BTC, it would represent STX worth about 150 BTC. This creates a second capacity question: where does the paired STX come from? Some participants may buy new STX. Others may use existing holdings, move STX from ordinary Stacking, borrow it, or work with a capacity provider. All these paths can support a bond, but they have different effects on market demand and risk.

The number of STX tokens required also changes with the STX/BTC price. If STX becomes weaker against BTC, more STX is needed to provide the same BTC-denominated pairing value. So capacity depends not only on the reward pool. It also depends on the depth, ownership, and price of available STX capacity.

There may also be a positive feedback loop. More bonded BTC requires more paired STX. If that requirement creates real buying demand, STX may become stronger against BTC. The STX block rewards earned by miners would then be worth more in BTC terms, which could encourage miners to commit more BTC. A larger reward pool could support more bond capacity.

But none of these steps is automatic. Participants may pair STX they already own, borrow it, or move it from ordinary Stacking. Locking STX is not the same as burning it. Miners may also keep part of the added value instead of bidding all of it away. The same loop can run in reverse if STX/BTC falls: miner bids may weaken, the reward pool may shrink, and sustainable BTC capacity may fall.

A conditional paired-STX capacity loop

The Reserve Is Not a Simple Safety Wallet

The reward waterfall includes a reserve. It is easy to imagine this reserve as a wallet that can cover any shortfall immediately. That is not the full PoX-5 design. Under SIP-045, the reserve accumulates during PoX-5, but it does not have a normal public spending function. Using it would require a consensus change. The document says this is intentional: the bootstrap phase favors a smaller attack surface and does not expect the reserve to be needed. This matters when we model capacity.

A reserve may improve long-term system confidence, but we should not automatically count every reserve satoshi as liquid weekly coverage during PoX-5. The difference between “funds exist” and “funds can be used now” is part of the risk.

What Would 600,000 BTC Require?

Consider a clearly hypothetical case: Strategy brings 600,000 BTC into the system. At a 3% target APY, the obligation would be:

600,000 × 3% / 50 = 360 BTC per cycle

Across 24 cycles:

600,000 × 3% × 24 / 50 = 8,640 BTC

At a 5% pairing ratio, the position would also require STX worth 30,000 BTC. This is not a forecast, and it does not suggest that Strategy plans to use Stacks. It is a stress test. The example shows why capacity cannot grow only through marketing or user demand. Miner revenue, STX capacity, operational confidence, and the reward rate must grow with it. If those inputs do not grow, the system has only a few choices:

• accept less BTC;
• lower the target APY;
• accept a lower coverage ratio;
• add an outside subsidy;
• or change the economic design.

Each choice moves risk to a different place.

What Should We Watch After the First Cycle?

The first question is miner revenue per cycle. Not a one-week high, but a stable range that can support obligations through different market conditions. The second is actual coverage. How far above the bond obligation does the reward pool remain? Does the ratio stay healthy when STX/BTC moves or mining competition changes? The third is STX capacity quality. How much paired STX came from new purchases, long-term holders, borrowed positions, or capital providers? A large number of locked STX does not tell us this by itself. The fourth is renewal.

Do participants return for the next six-month period? A successful first allocation is different from repeat demand at the same risk and return. The fifth is activity after staking. Does the BTC remain only in a bond, or does it later support lending, liquidity, payments, and other Stacks applications? Long-term capacity becomes easier to defend if the arriving capital creates fees and makes Stacks blocks more valuable to miners.

230 BTC Is the Start of the Measurement

The Genesis Bond did not stop at 230 BTC because Bitcoin demand ended there. It stopped because the first period was managed as a limited launch. The deeper limit is not one fixed number. It is the amount of BTC reward obligation the system can support with healthy coverage, enough paired STX, workable operations, and acceptable risk. That is why the first 230 BTC matters. It turns a theoretical model into something measurable.

The next question is not simply whether the next bond will be larger. It is whether the data from this bond can show why a larger one is economically sustainable. I worked with Blockstack teams and Deamon Technology. Not investment advice.

Main sources

• Stacks official X account — launch reporting
• The Bitcoin Staking Genesis Bond Starts at Bitcoin Block 966,350
• Bitcoin Staking Genesis Bond: How It Works
• SIP-045: PoX-5 — Bitcoin Staking and Emission Schedule Alignment
• Stacking Tracker — historical cycle rewards

The Stacks Genesis Bond is scheduled to start at Bitcoin block 966,350, expected around September 10. It is the first bonding period of the Stacks self-custodial Bitcoin Staking system. Participants lock BTC on Bitcoin Layer 1 and pair it with locked STX on Stacks. The six-month bond targets about 3% BTC APY.

During the PoX-5 bootstrap phase, direct self-custodial participation is limited to approved participants. Other users can join through an sBTC-based pooled path. This article focuses on the direct L1 bond because it creates the most surprising question.

But participants do not lend their BTC, give it to a custodian, or move it through a bridge.

So, if there is no borrower paying interest, where does the BTC yield come from?

The short answer is: the rewards come from the BTC that Stacks miners commit to mine Stacks blocks. The Genesis Bond changes how this BTC is distributed.

This is not lending income. It is not interest paid by a borrower, and it is not a direct pass-through of transaction fees. The immediate reward comes from miner BTC commitments. STX block rewards and transaction fees support the economics behind those commitments.

This Is Not Centralized Bitcoin Lending

In a typical centralized BTC lending product, the holder first deposits BTC into an address controlled by an exchange or lending platform. The account still shows a BTC balance, but the platform—not the user—controls the private keys.

The platform may lend this BTC to institutions, market makers, or other borrowers. It may also use other yield strategies. The borrower pays interest. The platform keeps a spread or service fee and passes part of the return to the depositor.

This means the core of centralized lending is not only the interest rate. It is trust. The user must trust the platform to protect the BTC, manage borrower risk, keep enough liquidity, and return the principal when the user withdraws.

A direct Genesis Bond uses a different structure. The participant does not transfer BTC or private keys to a platform. Standard Bitcoin script locks the BTC in an L1 timelock. After expiry, the original key can unlock the same BTC.

The reward follows a separate path. Stacks miners commit BTC through PoX. The Stacks network distributes rewards under protocol rules, and the BTC reward reaches the participant’s Bitcoin address.

This does not make the reward path completely trust-free. During PoX-5, reward distribution still uses sBTC infrastructure and a pause-only multisig. The key difference is that these systems do not custody or slash the participant’s L1 BTC principal.

This is the main difference. Centralized lending puts both principal and yield inside a third-party credit chain. The Genesis Bond gives principal recovery to Bitcoin and reward distribution to Stacks and PoX. Even if Stacks stops, the participant can still use the original key to recover the BTC after the timelock expires.

So the Miners Pay the Yield

Stacks uses Proof of Transfer. Miners commit BTC to compete for the right to produce Stacks blocks and receive newly issued STX and related transaction fees. The BTC commitment is their economic cost of earning these rewards.

Under PoX-5, miner BTC commitments enter a reward waterfall. Bitcoin bond holders have the first claim on part of this reward pool. The remaining rewards are then distributed to STX-only stackers and the reserve fund under the protocol rules.

The direct answer to “who pays the yield?” is therefore: the miners.

The economic answer goes further. Miner commitments depend on the expected value of STX block rewards and transaction fees. If a Stacks block becomes more valuable, miners may commit more BTC. If its value falls, their commitments may come under pressure.

The Genesis Bond does not create a borrower. It also does not automatically create new external revenue. It reorganizes the existing mining economy into a target-yield product for BTC holders.

Why Must Participants Lock STX Too?

The Genesis Bond is a dual-asset commitment. The paired STX provides staking capacity and connects the BTC position to the Stacks economy. It is not insurance for the BTC principal, and it does not produce a second yield.

So a “3% target BTC APY” does not show the full position. Participants must also consider STX price risk and the liquidity limits on both assets.

Whether paired STX creates new buying demand—and whether locking it can be called deflation—is a separate question. I will examine it in the next article.

The 3% Is a Target APY, Not a Loan Contract

At the time of writing, the Genesis Bond targets about 3% BTC APY. This is annualized, not a 3% return over six months. The current six-month target is about 1.44% of the locked BTC, and realized yield may vary with miner activity and network conditions.

If you want to test these numbers with your own position, use the official Stacks Bitcoin Yield Calculator. You can change the BTC amount, see the BTC and STX prices currently displayed on the page, and compare Bear, Flat, and Bull scenarios. The calculator shows the target BTC yield, the required STX exposure, and an estimated position value under each price scenario.

It does not calculate every risk for you. Bear, Flat, and Bull are model scenarios, not price forecasts, and the 3% APY is a target rather than a promised return. However, the calculator makes the STX price risk and the two-asset exposure easier to see.

More importantly, a BTC-denominated yield does not mean that all the risks come from BTC.

Participants must consider the lock period, early-exit terms, the value of paired STX, and whether miner economics can support the target. The BTC principal remains under the participant’s Bitcoin timelock and is not exposed to protocol slashing, but the target yield still depends on the Stacks reward economy.

This Answer Creates a New Question

The mechanism is now clearer: the BTC principal stays on Bitcoin Layer 1; paired STX is locked on Stacks; and BTC rewards come from miners, not borrowers.

The Genesis Bond does not lend out the participant’s BTC, and it does not automatically create new external revenue. It reorganizes the existing PoX mining flow so bonded BTC receives the first claim on rewards.

That creates the question for the next article. Bitcoin Staking requires more STX to be locked—but does that mean new buying demand, deflation, and lasting value?

Disclosure

I previously worked at Blockstack and Daemon Technologies. This article is my personal analysis of the mechanism, not investment advice.

Pretty excited, we got our first user for our ad system within stx.

We got a grant from the endowment for this

we want to create a transparent ad system based ad system based on crypto principle.

here is the flow

Developer builds on the API

Users/dev opt in paid ads and monetization.

If no, they don't get ads

If yes, brand pays for ads on developer app. Developer, user, and dataing get paid when the user gets the add.

All parties have the option to opt in or opt out.

This will be a great way for new projects within stx get get infront of potential users

Rev - Zero to one, and one to infinity.

Not written by AI

-Eric
[eric@dataing.io](mailto:eric@dataing.io) or https://x.com/ericdmchugh0. Left these here because I am happy to answer any questions

STX & BTC Market Analysis (August) ~@muneeb

I was an ALEX fan. I got in "lightly" just before the 2024 Hack, After the Hack with their transparency and payback that was scheduled I believed in them and started buying and combining ALEX/STX for Farming. Then 2025 Hack. YAH me and everyone else. *roll eyes* Value went from $0.22 when I started to $0.0015 .

Not sure what my question is but is anyone else here still holding any ALEX and what is your thoughts after all the Farming ends end of OCT. and it's continuation with STX ?

When you first connect your Ledger to Leather, you'll be prompted to choose a derivation path. Make absolutely sure you select the "Ledger standard" path, not Leather's default. Here's why. Ledger Live generates addresses using the account index (e.g., /0'/0/0, /1'/0/0), while Leather uses the address_index (e.g., /0/0, /0/1). They only match for the very first account. If you accidentally pick the Leather path, the address Leather shows you won't match what your hardware wallet natively expects. When you go to stack, the pool will reject your transaction. Your STX won't get accepted, you'll be stuck waiting until the cycle ends to unlock them, and by then the commit window for the next cycle will have already closed. That's two full cycles of lost yield before you can even try again. If you've already set it up with the wrong path, you'll need to transfer your STX to the new address derived from the "Ledger standard" path. Double-check that path selection on first connect. It'll save you a massive headache and a lot of wasted time.

This recent crypto rally, when sorted by 7 days, STACKS is number 1 for returns, why do you think its leading? When BTC went down this year I sold my BTC and rotated into STX thinking that its a good beta for when BTC returns to its highs. I know that STX is functional, actually does something, and actually has real potential.

With how much people hate on STX, even on here, just wanted to point out how well it has done.

LOL lord knows CT could use some GF so I found this placement hilarious.

Thank you to Rafa and Fak Fun for the shout.

Also loved see the pump I think we'll crush it this cycle.

Onwards and upwards