#dusk $DUSK @Dusk I noticed the problem when a regulated transfer on Dusk stopped just before settlement. The investor had passed the eligibility check earlier, but the credential behind that proof expired while the transaction was still moving through the process. Nothing looked obviously broken. The proof had been valid. Or, well, it had been valid when submitted. That left the operator with an awkward choice: accept the earlier state, pause the transfer, or request fresh verification and make everyone wait again. What caught my attention was how little extra information was actually needed. The issuer did not need the investor’s full history or current portfolio, only confirmation that the receiving wallet was still eligible at that moment. Dusk’s selective disclosure model should make that narrow check possible without turning a routine delay into a broad data request. But the mechanics do not remove the coordination problem. Someone still has to define when a proof becomes stale, who can request another one, and whether existing access should remain open after the review. Repeated checks could also leak patterns even when balances stay hidden. I’m not sure how cleanly this holds up once custodians, issuers, and external reviewers are all working on different schedules. I’d watch the next transfer where eligibility changes mid-settlement and see whether the system fails clearly—or just leaves an operator guessing.