For a long time, blockchain has been associated with one simple idea: everything should be visible.That sounds great until you look at how real financial markets work.
A company may not want competitors tracking its treasury movements. An investor may not want their entire portfolio strategy exposed after every settlement. A market maker certainly doesn’t want every move they make to become public information.
This is why I think privacy deserves more attention when we talk about bringing traditional finance onchain. @Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
@dusk takes an interesting approach here. It isn’t trying to make everything hidden. Instead, the idea is to keep sensitive information private while still allowing regulators or authorized parties to check what they actually need to check.That distinction is important.
For example, zero knowledge proofs can allow someone to prove that they meet certain requirements without putting all of their personal or transaction information on a public ledger. Businesses can also have more privacy around securities and financial operations while keeping the ability for proper oversight when required.
To me, this makes much more sense for regulated markets than simply making every piece of information visible to everyone.
There is also a bigger question here. If blockchain is supposed to bring bonds, equities, ETFs and other financial assets onchain, should institutions really have to sacrifice confidentiality to use the technology?
I don’t think so.Transparency builds trust, but privacy can make participation possible in the first place. Both have a role to play.That’s what makes Dusk interesting to me. Its approach connects privacy with compliance instead of treating them as two separate problems.
If financial markets are going to move onchain at scale, the technology needs to work with the way those markets actually operate.Would you trust a public blockchain more if it could provide transparency when needed without exposing sensitive financial information to everyone? @Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK $NVDAB
A company may not want competitors tracking its treasury movements. An investor may not want their entire portfolio strategy exposed after every settlement. A market maker certainly doesn’t want every move they make to become public information.
This is why I think privacy deserves more attention when we talk about bringing traditional finance onchain. @Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
@dusk takes an interesting approach here. It isn’t trying to make everything hidden. Instead, the idea is to keep sensitive information private while still allowing regulators or authorized parties to check what they actually need to check.That distinction is important.
For example, zero knowledge proofs can allow someone to prove that they meet certain requirements without putting all of their personal or transaction information on a public ledger. Businesses can also have more privacy around securities and financial operations while keeping the ability for proper oversight when required.
To me, this makes much more sense for regulated markets than simply making every piece of information visible to everyone.
There is also a bigger question here. If blockchain is supposed to bring bonds, equities, ETFs and other financial assets onchain, should institutions really have to sacrifice confidentiality to use the technology?
I don’t think so.Transparency builds trust, but privacy can make participation possible in the first place. Both have a role to play.That’s what makes Dusk interesting to me. Its approach connects privacy with compliance instead of treating them as two separate problems.
If financial markets are going to move onchain at scale, the technology needs to work with the way those markets actually operate.Would you trust a public blockchain more if it could provide transparency when needed without exposing sensitive financial information to everyone? @Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK $NVDAB