Could the future of on-chain identity actually mean putting - less identity on-chain?
That idea sounded strange to me at first.
I used to see regulated blockchain finance as a difficult tradeoff:
More compliance = less privacy.
More privacy = less compliance.
Then I started looking deeper into Citadel on @Dusk , and that assumption began to change.
The interesting idea is not simply hiding identity.
It is being able to prove something without exposing everything.
Imagine a financial application needs to verify that I completed KYC, live in an approved jurisdiction, or meet a certain eligibility condition.
It needs to know that the requirement is satisfied.
But why should that automatically mean sharing my passport, address and other personal information again?
This is where selective disclosure becomes powerful.
Instead of saying:
“Here is my identity. Check whatever you need.”
the model becomes:
“Here is cryptographic proof that I qualify. You don't need the rest.”
That changes how I think about privacy on $DUSK .
It is not necessarily about anonymity.
It is about controlled disclosure.
Reveal what the transaction requires.
Keep everything unrelated out of the transaction.
There is still one part that cryptography cannot solve by itself.
Someone has to issue the original credential.
If that issuer is compromised, careless, or provides incorrect information, a zero-knowledge proof can still prove that credential perfectly.
So Citadel may not eliminate trust.
Instead, it could move the trust boundary while reducing the amount of sensitive information that has to cross it.
To me, that is far more interesting than simply calling Dusk a privacy blockchain.
As regulated finance moves on-chain, where do you think the biggest weakness will remain: the issuer, the wallet, or the application verifying the credential?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
That idea sounded strange to me at first.
I used to see regulated blockchain finance as a difficult tradeoff:
More compliance = less privacy.
More privacy = less compliance.
Then I started looking deeper into Citadel on @Dusk , and that assumption began to change.
The interesting idea is not simply hiding identity.
It is being able to prove something without exposing everything.
Imagine a financial application needs to verify that I completed KYC, live in an approved jurisdiction, or meet a certain eligibility condition.
It needs to know that the requirement is satisfied.
But why should that automatically mean sharing my passport, address and other personal information again?
This is where selective disclosure becomes powerful.
Instead of saying:
“Here is my identity. Check whatever you need.”
the model becomes:
“Here is cryptographic proof that I qualify. You don't need the rest.”
That changes how I think about privacy on $DUSK .
It is not necessarily about anonymity.
It is about controlled disclosure.
Reveal what the transaction requires.
Keep everything unrelated out of the transaction.
There is still one part that cryptography cannot solve by itself.
Someone has to issue the original credential.
If that issuer is compromised, careless, or provides incorrect information, a zero-knowledge proof can still prove that credential perfectly.
So Citadel may not eliminate trust.
Instead, it could move the trust boundary while reducing the amount of sensitive information that has to cross it.
To me, that is far more interesting than simply calling Dusk a privacy blockchain.
As regulated finance moves on-chain, where do you think the biggest weakness will remain: the issuer, the wallet, or the application verifying the credential?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk