The first time I redrew Dusk’s flow for myself, I didn’t start with Zedger or Hedger... I started with one annoying question: how hidden does an asset really need to be?
I’ll use a simple example, just 100 USD.
if I’m retail, I don’t want my address and amount exposed like numbers flashing on a street display.
but if I’m an institution holding securities, privacy that an auditor can’t unlock even with a compliance basis may sound cool, yet in real use it can become a burden.
that was when I started seeing what Dusk gets right: privacy here is treated as access rights, not an on-off switch!
Zedger runs with UTXO, fitting full anonymity, hiding transaction details, sender address, receiver address and amount through cryptography.
Hedger runs with EVM and account model, more pragmatic: outsiders don’t see everything, but auditability still exists when compliance requires it.
honestly, I prefer splitting the problem this way instead of forcing every asset into one jacket.
UTXO is strong on privacy, but DeFi composability is harder to work with.
EVM gives applications, DeFi lending and composability more room, but full anonymity still runs into the limits of the account model.
I wrote down a rough formula: privacy + auditability + composability are hard to push to the maximum at the same time.
want more of one, and you usually give up some of another.
what I watch most closely is the asset flow between Zedger and Hedger once mainnet is actually running...
on a diagram, it looks beautiful and convincing.
when liquidity starts moving, DeFi carries real load, auditors need to inspect things, and retail still wants privacy, that’s when we’ll know whether this architecture is truly smart or only looks good while standing still.
for me, valuable privacy isn’t about hiding everything, but letting the right person see the right thing at the right time.
what about you, will Dusk splitting privacy by context become its biggest advantage, or its most complicated problem?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $PORTAL
I’ll use a simple example, just 100 USD.
if I’m retail, I don’t want my address and amount exposed like numbers flashing on a street display.
but if I’m an institution holding securities, privacy that an auditor can’t unlock even with a compliance basis may sound cool, yet in real use it can become a burden.
that was when I started seeing what Dusk gets right: privacy here is treated as access rights, not an on-off switch!
Zedger runs with UTXO, fitting full anonymity, hiding transaction details, sender address, receiver address and amount through cryptography.
Hedger runs with EVM and account model, more pragmatic: outsiders don’t see everything, but auditability still exists when compliance requires it.
honestly, I prefer splitting the problem this way instead of forcing every asset into one jacket.
UTXO is strong on privacy, but DeFi composability is harder to work with.
EVM gives applications, DeFi lending and composability more room, but full anonymity still runs into the limits of the account model.
I wrote down a rough formula: privacy + auditability + composability are hard to push to the maximum at the same time.
want more of one, and you usually give up some of another.
what I watch most closely is the asset flow between Zedger and Hedger once mainnet is actually running...
on a diagram, it looks beautiful and convincing.
when liquidity starts moving, DeFi carries real load, auditors need to inspect things, and retail still wants privacy, that’s when we’ll know whether this architecture is truly smart or only looks good while standing still.
for me, valuable privacy isn’t about hiding everything, but letting the right person see the right thing at the right time.
what about you, will Dusk splitting privacy by context become its biggest advantage, or its most complicated problem?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $PORTAL