Here's a tension I don't think gets discussed enough: if financial information is private, who's checking that nothing shady is happening?

This is where the design gets more nuanced. Full privacy with zero accountability isn't actually attractive to regulators or serious institutions — it just recreates the problems that already exist with opaque paperwork, except on a blockchain. What financial infrastructure typically needs instead is selective disclosure: keeping information private from the general public while letting specific authorized parties verify what happened when required.

@Dusk_Foundation 's own architecture leans on this rather than blanket anonymity. Citadel, its identity protocol, is built around letting someone prove they meet a requirement — passing KYC, holding a license, meeting an eligibility check — without handing over the underlying personal data, using zero-knowledge proofs instead. A piece $DUSK
published this month on tokenizing private-market securities makes the same point from the institutional side: ownership and servicing records need privacy, but permitted parties still have to verify relevant information, not the full investor record.

The real question is how well that holds up once actual regulators, auditors, and disputes test it, since selective disclosure as a design goal is easier to state than to prove in production. That's still ahead of Dusk, not behind it. #dusk

Should financial privacy always come with a way for regulators to verify it?