Spent an hour reading through Dusk's docs looking for the retail on-ramp, and kept landing back on compliance tooling built for institutions instead. Dusk markets itself as privacy-preserving infrastructure for regulated finance, and technically it is, but the actual design choice underneath is that confidential transactions and selective disclosure exist primarily to satisfy auditors and regulators, not to give individual users control over their own privacy. The permissioned smart contract layer assumes an issuer, a compliance officer, a KYC gate — the individual holder is a downstream participant, not the primary user the architecture was built around. That's not a flaw exactly, it's just a sequencing choice: build the rails institutions need first, let retail access follow once the pipes are proven. Most "on-chain finance" projects do this quietly, but Dusk is unusually explicit about it in the docs, which is almost refreshing. Still, it means the privacy story reads differently depending on who's asking for it — a fund wants confidentiality from competitors, a person wants confidentiality from everyone. Are those actually the same problem, or just the same word.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk