I was digging through Dusk's viewing key implementation last week trying to understand how they actually reconcile selective disclosure with regulatory reporting, and something clicked that I hadn't seen discussed anywhere. ($DUSK #dusk @Dusk ) gets pitched constantly as "privacy meets compliance" like it's a marketing checkbox, but the actual mechanism is narrower and more interesting than that phrase suggests. What stood out to me is that the compliance layer isn't a backdoor bolted onto a private chain, it's structured so disclosure happens per transaction, to a specific party, using a key the sender controls issuance of. That's a meaningfully different trust model than "regulators can see everything" or "nobody can see anything." I kept coming back to how few actual dApps on testnet are using this feature in any visible way right now, most activity still looks like basic transfers, so the compliance tooling exists mostly in documentation and in the protocol layer rather than in observable user behavior. Makes sense given adoption stage, but it means the real test of whether this design holds up under actual auditor or institutional use hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure if that's a patience problem or a demand problem.