There is a contradiction sitting at the centre of Dusk Trade that I have not seen anyone address, and it is not a technical one.
Dusk Trade is structured to operate as a regulated MTF. That word carries obligations most people in crypto never think about. Under MiFIR, a multilateral trading facility has to make pre-trade information public. Current bids and offers, depth of interest at those prices. And after execution it has to publish price, volume and time, as close to real time as technically possible.
Now hold that next to the pitch. A chain built for programmable privacy, running a venue legally obliged to publish what is trading and at what price.
At first this looked like a straight conflict to me. It is not, and working out why changed how I read the whole design.
Market transparency and holder privacy are not the same thing. MiFIR wants the market to know that a bond traded at a price, in a size, at a time. It does not require the market to know which entity holds what, or the size of anyone's book. Those are separate facts living at separate layers.
A transparent chain collapses them. Publish the trade and you publish the position, because everything sits in one visible state. A chain with selective disclosure can keep them apart. The trade report goes to the tape. The holdings stay shielded. The regulator sees whatever supervision requires.
So privacy here is not about hiding from the market. It is about not leaking things the market was never entitled to in the first place.
Where I am still unsure is the boundary. @Dusk_Foundation who decides which facts land on the public tape and which stay shielded, and is that line enforced by the protocol or by the venue operating on top of it? Those are very different guarantees.
Curious if anyone here has thought about where that line should sit.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA
Dusk Trade is structured to operate as a regulated MTF. That word carries obligations most people in crypto never think about. Under MiFIR, a multilateral trading facility has to make pre-trade information public. Current bids and offers, depth of interest at those prices. And after execution it has to publish price, volume and time, as close to real time as technically possible.
Now hold that next to the pitch. A chain built for programmable privacy, running a venue legally obliged to publish what is trading and at what price.
At first this looked like a straight conflict to me. It is not, and working out why changed how I read the whole design.
Market transparency and holder privacy are not the same thing. MiFIR wants the market to know that a bond traded at a price, in a size, at a time. It does not require the market to know which entity holds what, or the size of anyone's book. Those are separate facts living at separate layers.
A transparent chain collapses them. Publish the trade and you publish the position, because everything sits in one visible state. A chain with selective disclosure can keep them apart. The trade report goes to the tape. The holdings stay shielded. The regulator sees whatever supervision requires.
So privacy here is not about hiding from the market. It is about not leaking things the market was never entitled to in the first place.
Where I am still unsure is the boundary. @Dusk_Foundation who decides which facts land on the public tape and which stay shielded, and is that line enforced by the protocol or by the venue operating on top of it? Those are very different guarantees.
Curious if anyone here has thought about where that line should sit.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA