Spent an afternoon reading through Dusk Network's RWA settlement docs, expecting the privacy layer to be the default rail for how tokenized assets move. It isn't. $DUSK architecture supports confidential transactions natively, but the tooling that got reached for during the August 16 bridge incident was transparent-chain infrastructure, not the privacy-native stack the project is built around. #dusk positions itself as the compliant, privacy-first settlement layer for regulated assets, the kind of thing RWA issuers are supposed to want. Yet when something broke, the fallback wasn't confidentiality-preserving, it was whatever could be debugged and explained fastest. That's not a criticism of the team's response, it's a data point about what "production-ready privacy" actually means under pressure. If the emergency path defaults to transparency, then privacy is currently a feature you opt into when things are calm, not a property the system guarantees when they aren't. For a chain pitching itself as the future of confidential RWA settlement, that gap between the pitch and the incident response is worth sitting with. What happens to the RWA narrative if privacy only holds until it's tested?@Dusk