What caught me off guard about Dusk was that its privacy model doesn’t seem to mean “hide everything.”
The small detail that changed my view was selective disclosure.
With Phoenix, transaction details like the amount and specific notes can stay shielded, but a user can still reveal information through a viewing key when someone actually needs evidence.
That sounds like a minor implementation choice at first.
But for financial assets, it feels like a much bigger assumption: privacy isn’t being treated as the opposite of compliance. The system seems to assume that some information should remain private from the market while still being provable to the right party.
That’s a very different design question from simply building a private blockchain.
It also makes me wonder about the uncomfortable edge case: who decides exactly what the “right party” is, and how much disclosure is enough when the asset itself has rules around eligibility, transfers and reporting?
That’s probably where the real test of this model begins.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
The small detail that changed my view was selective disclosure.
With Phoenix, transaction details like the amount and specific notes can stay shielded, but a user can still reveal information through a viewing key when someone actually needs evidence.
That sounds like a minor implementation choice at first.
But for financial assets, it feels like a much bigger assumption: privacy isn’t being treated as the opposite of compliance. The system seems to assume that some information should remain private from the market while still being provable to the right party.
That’s a very different design question from simply building a private blockchain.
It also makes me wonder about the uncomfortable edge case: who decides exactly what the “right party” is, and how much disclosure is enough when the asset itself has rules around eligibility, transfers and reporting?
That’s probably where the real test of this model begins.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk