Privacy onchain is easy to sell. Making it usable for financial markets is the hard part.
That’s where @Dusk_Foundation and zpeioget interesting.
DuskDS isn’t just another ledger sitting underneath the stack. It acts as the anchor for data availability, proofs, and asset balances while allowing transparent and shielded states to coexist natively.
That matters because regulated finance probably won’t work with the “everything public” model.
A bank, fund, or securities issuer may need transactions to be verifiable without exposing every sensitive detail to the entire network.
The interesting part is how @Dusk_Foundation connects its rails at the consensus layer. Moonlight handles transparent flows, while Phoenix handles shielded balance transitions.
No separate privacy mixer bolted on later.
For me, this is the more important direction for RWAs: privacy that is programmable and verifiable, not simply hidden.
If blockchain wants serious financial assets, shouldn’t privacy be part of the settlement layer itself?
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
$ONG
$PEOPLE
That’s where @Dusk_Foundation and zpeioget interesting.
DuskDS isn’t just another ledger sitting underneath the stack. It acts as the anchor for data availability, proofs, and asset balances while allowing transparent and shielded states to coexist natively.
That matters because regulated finance probably won’t work with the “everything public” model.
A bank, fund, or securities issuer may need transactions to be verifiable without exposing every sensitive detail to the entire network.
The interesting part is how @Dusk_Foundation connects its rails at the consensus layer. Moonlight handles transparent flows, while Phoenix handles shielded balance transitions.
No separate privacy mixer bolted on later.
For me, this is the more important direction for RWAs: privacy that is programmable and verifiable, not simply hidden.
If blockchain wants serious financial assets, shouldn’t privacy be part of the settlement layer itself?
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
$ONG
$PEOPLE