“real DOTs” will not exist if the buying/selling pressure is not revealed by a “real buying/selling” liquidation. It is interesting that a cryptographic primitive would signify different things for the same token, DOT, depending on the context. It is like when money is loaned, versus perpetually generated by revenue (hopefully in a distributive economy of many, not just a few holders); Money is fungible, but its utilisation gives it instrumental properties which can vary substantially depending on its context.
You can have any quantity of DOTs issued, but if they don’t hit the market demand with a revealed price of a “real transaction” between two peers, then its value is subjective given by user’s interpretation of risk and other real transactions as you well mentioned.
In this sense, this architecture looks very similar to a perp dex-style vault + insurance fund + funding-rate balancing.
The similarities:
- Both are overcollateralized vaults that lock a volatile token to issue a spendable “stable” claim, with automatic liquidation/buffer mechanisms to protect solvency.
- Both use a continuous, algorithmic payment/flow (funding rate vs. smoothed outflow schedule) to prevent the system from drifting too far in one temporal direction and keep the “perpetual” structure sustainable.
- Same role: a hoard of volatile tokens that absorbs shocks so the rest of the system (traders or protocol spenders) isn’t wiped out when collateral value crashes.
- Both systems use parametric curves and on-chain signals to steer participant behavior toward a target equilibrium (balanced longs/shorts vs. uniform validator stake).
- The core promise is identical: turn a finite/decaying resource into a sustainable perpetual stream through clever financial engineering.