The more I look at privacy in regulated finance, the more I think we’ve been asking the wrong question.
It’s not really about whether a blockchain should be public or private.
The better question is: who actually needs to know what?
Think about a regulated asset onchain.
An investor probably doesn’t want the entire market watching their balance and every move they make. An issuer may need to verify that the investor is eligible. A venue may need to confirm that a transfer follows the rules. And a regulator might need evidence later.
Those are completely different requirements.
Dusk seems to be approaching this from that angle.
Moonlight gives DuskDS a transparent transaction model, while Phoenix provides shielded transfers where sensitive transaction details aren’t exposed publicly. Dusk also describes selective disclosure and identity credentials as ways to provide the necessary evidence without making everything visible to everyone.
And honestly, that distinction makes a lot of sense for finance.
Traditional markets already work with different layers of visibility. Your broker doesn’t need the same information as an exchange. An auditor doesn’t need the same information as another investor. A regulator may have access that the general public simply doesn’t.
So why should putting that market on a blockchain suddenly mean everyone gets the same view?
That’s the part of Dusk I find interesting.
Privacy here isn’t about disappearing.
It’s about having the right information available to the right party when there is a legitimate reason to see it.
Maybe that’s what regulated onchain finance actually needs:
Not maximum transparency.
Not complete anonymity.
Just controlled visibility with verifiable evidence.
And that feels much closer to how real financial markets already operate.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $VELVET $AKE
It’s not really about whether a blockchain should be public or private.
The better question is: who actually needs to know what?
Think about a regulated asset onchain.
An investor probably doesn’t want the entire market watching their balance and every move they make. An issuer may need to verify that the investor is eligible. A venue may need to confirm that a transfer follows the rules. And a regulator might need evidence later.
Those are completely different requirements.
Dusk seems to be approaching this from that angle.
Moonlight gives DuskDS a transparent transaction model, while Phoenix provides shielded transfers where sensitive transaction details aren’t exposed publicly. Dusk also describes selective disclosure and identity credentials as ways to provide the necessary evidence without making everything visible to everyone.
And honestly, that distinction makes a lot of sense for finance.
Traditional markets already work with different layers of visibility. Your broker doesn’t need the same information as an exchange. An auditor doesn’t need the same information as another investor. A regulator may have access that the general public simply doesn’t.
So why should putting that market on a blockchain suddenly mean everyone gets the same view?
That’s the part of Dusk I find interesting.
Privacy here isn’t about disappearing.
It’s about having the right information available to the right party when there is a legitimate reason to see it.
Maybe that’s what regulated onchain finance actually needs:
Not maximum transparency.
Not complete anonymity.
Just controlled visibility with verifiable evidence.
And that feels much closer to how real financial markets already operate.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $VELVET $AKE