I still think Dusk is being looked at too narrowly when people call it a privacy blockchain.
The more interesting question to me is: who should be able to see what?
( @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk )
That became clearer when I looked at Dusk’s transaction models.
Moonlight is public and account-based, while Phoenix is shielded and note-based, using zero-knowledge proofs to protect transaction details. Both settle on DuskDS, but give observers very different levels of visibility.
And that matters when you start talking about financial markets.
An investor may not want every balance or transfer exposed publicly. An issuer may need to verify ownership or eligibility, while an auditor or venue may only need specific information.
Phoenix’s viewing keys make selective disclosure possible - information can be shared with a specific party without making the underlying activity public to everyone.
That makes me look at Dusk’s privacy model differently.
It’s not really about hiding everything. It’s about controlling what stays private, what becomes visible, and what can be disclosed when needed.
Then DuskEVM adds another layer, giving developers a familiar EVM environment while DuskDS handles settlement and data availability.
That makes the RWA question more interesting:
Who can own the asset?
Who can transfer it?
What stays private?
What needs to be verified?
The technology is one thing. The harder test is whether institutions actually build workflows around it.
Can Dusk turn selective disclosure from a cryptographic capability into infrastructure financial institutions genuinely depend on ?
The more interesting question to me is: who should be able to see what?
( @Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk )
That became clearer when I looked at Dusk’s transaction models.
Moonlight is public and account-based, while Phoenix is shielded and note-based, using zero-knowledge proofs to protect transaction details. Both settle on DuskDS, but give observers very different levels of visibility.
And that matters when you start talking about financial markets.
An investor may not want every balance or transfer exposed publicly. An issuer may need to verify ownership or eligibility, while an auditor or venue may only need specific information.
Phoenix’s viewing keys make selective disclosure possible - information can be shared with a specific party without making the underlying activity public to everyone.
That makes me look at Dusk’s privacy model differently.
It’s not really about hiding everything. It’s about controlling what stays private, what becomes visible, and what can be disclosed when needed.
Then DuskEVM adds another layer, giving developers a familiar EVM environment while DuskDS handles settlement and data availability.
That makes the RWA question more interesting:
Who can own the asset?
Who can transfer it?
What stays private?
What needs to be verified?
The technology is one thing. The harder test is whether institutions actually build workflows around it.
Can Dusk turn selective disclosure from a cryptographic capability into infrastructure financial institutions genuinely depend on ?