SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE SOLVES WHO CAN SEE THE DATA. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RULES CHANGE?
This is the part of @Dusk_Foundation ’s privacy model I find increasingly interesting.
In regulated finance, selective disclosure makes intuitive sense.
An auditor may need one set of information.
A regulator may need another.
A counterparty may only need proof that a condition was satisfied.
That is much more practical than making everything public.
But I think there is a second problem hiding behind the first one.
Privacy rules are not static.
Regulations change. Applications get upgraded. New disclosure requirements appear. Institutions may need permissions that were never anticipated when a contract was first deployed.
So for me, the deeper question is not only:
Who is allowed to see what today?
It is:
What happens to the trust model when that answer needs to change tomorrow?
This is where Dusk becomes more interesting than a simple “private transactions” story.
Programmable privacy means confidentiality and authorized disclosure can become part of the application logic itself. That is powerful because regulated markets need exactly this kind of flexibility.
But flexibility also creates responsibility.
If privacy-related logic can evolve, I want to understand how those changes are authorized, how visible they are to users, and whether an upgrade can introduce assumptions that were not present when an institution first relied on the application.
That isn't a criticism of the direction. In fact, I think it shows why Dusk is tackling a much harder problem than hiding transaction data.
The infrastructure has to preserve confidentiality and make changes to that confidentiality model trustworthy.
What I would watch over time is not simply how much information Dusk can keep private.
I would watch whether applications can evolve their disclosure rules without quietly changing who users ultimately have to trust.
For regulated finance, that may be the harder privacy problem.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
$ACE $AKE
This is the part of @Dusk_Foundation ’s privacy model I find increasingly interesting.
In regulated finance, selective disclosure makes intuitive sense.
An auditor may need one set of information.
A regulator may need another.
A counterparty may only need proof that a condition was satisfied.
That is much more practical than making everything public.
But I think there is a second problem hiding behind the first one.
Privacy rules are not static.
Regulations change. Applications get upgraded. New disclosure requirements appear. Institutions may need permissions that were never anticipated when a contract was first deployed.
So for me, the deeper question is not only:
Who is allowed to see what today?
It is:
What happens to the trust model when that answer needs to change tomorrow?
This is where Dusk becomes more interesting than a simple “private transactions” story.
Programmable privacy means confidentiality and authorized disclosure can become part of the application logic itself. That is powerful because regulated markets need exactly this kind of flexibility.
But flexibility also creates responsibility.
If privacy-related logic can evolve, I want to understand how those changes are authorized, how visible they are to users, and whether an upgrade can introduce assumptions that were not present when an institution first relied on the application.
That isn't a criticism of the direction. In fact, I think it shows why Dusk is tackling a much harder problem than hiding transaction data.
The infrastructure has to preserve confidentiality and make changes to that confidentiality model trustworthy.
What I would watch over time is not simply how much information Dusk can keep private.
I would watch whether applications can evolve their disclosure rules without quietly changing who users ultimately have to trust.
For regulated finance, that may be the harder privacy problem.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
$ACE $AKE