One thing I keep thinking about with onchain finance is that “programmable” doesn’t always have to mean completely open. With regulated assets, there are rules around who can hold them, who can transfer them and what information should actually be visible. That creates an interesting problem: how do you keep financial assets programmable while still respecting those rules?
That’s where Dusk caught my attention.
Its infrastructure includes access controls and transfer restrictions for regulated assets, while Citadel supports identity and selective disclosure. So instead of treating compliance as something that happens outside the chain, these requirements can become part of the asset workflow itself.
I find that distinction more interesting than simply saying “RWAs are coming on-chain.”
Because the real challenge isn't just making an asset programmable.
It’s making it usable within the rules that come with the asset.
And I think that’s one of the more interesting things to watch with Dusk: can financial assets remain programmable while the controls around them become part of the same onchain system?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
That’s where Dusk caught my attention.
Its infrastructure includes access controls and transfer restrictions for regulated assets, while Citadel supports identity and selective disclosure. So instead of treating compliance as something that happens outside the chain, these requirements can become part of the asset workflow itself.
I find that distinction more interesting than simply saying “RWAs are coming on-chain.”
Because the real challenge isn't just making an asset programmable.
It’s making it usable within the rules that come with the asset.
And I think that’s one of the more interesting things to watch with Dusk: can financial assets remain programmable while the controls around them become part of the same onchain system?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk