#dusk I kept coming back to one number in Dusk’s institutional story: 300M+ EUR.
That is the amount of assets NPEX plans to bring onchain via Dusk. NPEX is an AFM-regulated exchange licensed as an MTF, Broker and ECSP, so the privacy problem here is very different from hiding a normal crypto transfer.
The obvious assumption is that privacy means hiding everything. Dusk’s model is more conditional.
It has 2 transaction models: Moonlight for public, account-based transactions and Phoenix for shielded transactions. Phoenix uses a 64-byte address, compared with 96 bytes for Moonlight, and is designed to keep details such as sender, receiver and amount from being exposed publicly.
That changes the comparison I care about.
It is not transparent vs private. It is who gets to see what, and when.
Dusk explicitly combines privacy where needed, transparency where useful, and selective disclosure for authorized review.
But the 300M+ EUR figure makes the trade-off harder.
Can a regulated market keep sensitive positions shielded while still giving an issuer, venue, auditor or supervisor exactly the information required for review?
That is where I think Dusk’s privacy model gets interesting.
The technology can hide data. The harder part is controlling disclosure without turning every financial workflow into a compliance headache.
My doubt is simple: privacy is useful only when disclosure can be controlled just as precisely.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK
That is the amount of assets NPEX plans to bring onchain via Dusk. NPEX is an AFM-regulated exchange licensed as an MTF, Broker and ECSP, so the privacy problem here is very different from hiding a normal crypto transfer.
The obvious assumption is that privacy means hiding everything. Dusk’s model is more conditional.
It has 2 transaction models: Moonlight for public, account-based transactions and Phoenix for shielded transactions. Phoenix uses a 64-byte address, compared with 96 bytes for Moonlight, and is designed to keep details such as sender, receiver and amount from being exposed publicly.
That changes the comparison I care about.
It is not transparent vs private. It is who gets to see what, and when.
Dusk explicitly combines privacy where needed, transparency where useful, and selective disclosure for authorized review.
But the 300M+ EUR figure makes the trade-off harder.
Can a regulated market keep sensitive positions shielded while still giving an issuer, venue, auditor or supervisor exactly the information required for review?
That is where I think Dusk’s privacy model gets interesting.
The technology can hide data. The harder part is controlling disclosure without turning every financial workflow into a compliance headache.
My doubt is simple: privacy is useful only when disclosure can be controlled just as precisely.
@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK