Broke privacy down by who it's actually for, because "programmable privacy" sounds abstract until you split it by the party using it. Dusk's own framing does this in four parts.
For issuers, privacy is about the rules. Asset terms, access conditions, corporate actions and disclosure requirements can live inside the asset logic itself, rather than in a separate off-chain process.
For investors, its about exposure. Balances, transfers and positions dont have to be broadcast to the entire internet, which on a fully public chain they otherwise would be.
For venues and institutions, its about the operating picture. Permissions, settlement and review can happen without putting the whole workflow on public display.
For builders, its broader than any single address. Privacy covers the rules, the data and the user experience, not just the token-holding wallet.
So privacy here isnt one setting. Its four different needs that happen to share a mechanism.
The verdict i'd draw is that this is why "just make it private" undersells it, each party wants a different thing hidden or shown.
What im less sure about is who owns the disclosure policy when these four overlap, if an issuer's rule and a venue's permission disagree about what a reviewer can see, whose setting wins.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
For issuers, privacy is about the rules. Asset terms, access conditions, corporate actions and disclosure requirements can live inside the asset logic itself, rather than in a separate off-chain process.
For investors, its about exposure. Balances, transfers and positions dont have to be broadcast to the entire internet, which on a fully public chain they otherwise would be.
For venues and institutions, its about the operating picture. Permissions, settlement and review can happen without putting the whole workflow on public display.
For builders, its broader than any single address. Privacy covers the rules, the data and the user experience, not just the token-holding wallet.
So privacy here isnt one setting. Its four different needs that happen to share a mechanism.
The verdict i'd draw is that this is why "just make it private" undersells it, each party wants a different thing hidden or shown.
What im less sure about is who owns the disclosure policy when these four overlap, if an issuer's rule and a venue's permission disagree about what a reviewer can see, whose setting wins.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk