One thing I keep coming back to with @Dusk_Foundation k is the difference between privacy and simply hiding information.
In crypto, privacy is often presented as an all-or-nothing choice.
Either everything is visible on a public ledger, or everything disappears behind a privacy mechanism.
But regulated financial markets don't really work that way.
A bank, asset manager, issuer or regulator may need access to specific information without needing access to every piece of information connected to a transaction.
That's why Dusk's approach to selective privacy is interesting to me.
Imagine a tokenized security moving between two investors. The market may need to verify that the transaction is legitimate. An issuer may need to know whether the buyer is eligible. A regulator may need certain records for compliance.
But does every participant in the network need to see the buyer's complete identity, portfolio or financial history?
Probably not.
That's where the concept of selective disclosure becomes important.
Instead of treating privacy as "nobody can see anything," the goal is closer to "the right party can verify the right information."
That sounds like a small distinction, but it could become extremely important if blockchain infrastructure starts handling real-world financial assets at scale.
Public blockchains created an incredible level of transparency, but traditional finance has spent decades building systems around controlled access to sensitive information.
So institutional adoption isn't necessarily about forcing financial markets to abandon that principle.
Maybe the better approach is building blockchain infrastructure that can preserve it.
This is one reason @Dusk_Foundation stands out to me. Its architecture is being designed around regulated assets where privacy, identity, access control and settlement need to work together rather than independently.
If privacy and compliance make Dusk more suitable for institutional assets, does increasing real-world usage eventually translate into stronger utility for $DUSK ?
$DUSK #DUST
In crypto, privacy is often presented as an all-or-nothing choice.
Either everything is visible on a public ledger, or everything disappears behind a privacy mechanism.
But regulated financial markets don't really work that way.
A bank, asset manager, issuer or regulator may need access to specific information without needing access to every piece of information connected to a transaction.
That's why Dusk's approach to selective privacy is interesting to me.
Imagine a tokenized security moving between two investors. The market may need to verify that the transaction is legitimate. An issuer may need to know whether the buyer is eligible. A regulator may need certain records for compliance.
But does every participant in the network need to see the buyer's complete identity, portfolio or financial history?
Probably not.
That's where the concept of selective disclosure becomes important.
Instead of treating privacy as "nobody can see anything," the goal is closer to "the right party can verify the right information."
That sounds like a small distinction, but it could become extremely important if blockchain infrastructure starts handling real-world financial assets at scale.
Public blockchains created an incredible level of transparency, but traditional finance has spent decades building systems around controlled access to sensitive information.
So institutional adoption isn't necessarily about forcing financial markets to abandon that principle.
Maybe the better approach is building blockchain infrastructure that can preserve it.
This is one reason @Dusk_Foundation stands out to me. Its architecture is being designed around regulated assets where privacy, identity, access control and settlement need to work together rather than independently.
If privacy and compliance make Dusk more suitable for institutional assets, does increasing real-world usage eventually translate into stronger utility for $DUSK ?
$DUSK #DUST