A few days ago, I chatted with an old friend who has been involved in bringing regulatory-compliant security tokens to life. We talked about @Dusk (https://www.binance.com/zh-CN/square/profile/dusk_foundation) and the underlying positioning behind it. His viewpoint refreshed the initial understanding I had formed when I read Chapter 1 of the whitepaper.
Many people in the market talk about Dusk and only focus on the “privacy L1” label, assuming that an architecture designed to balance privacy and auditability can directly take on RWA assets. But this friend, who has long been coordinating with institutions, pointed out the practical contradiction I previously overlooked: this native design itself inherently carries unavoidable adaptation costs.
Looking back, I revisited Chapter 1 of the whitepaper. The document clearly sets the building of a privacy-and-compliance compliant financial infrastructure as the core goal. By using PLONK zero-knowledge proofs, together with three fundamental primitives—REGISTER, SEND, and CREATE—it encrypts transaction information while reserving an authorization and audit channel. $DUSK covers the costs consumed by contract deployment, proof computation, and other operations within the network.
In theory, it overcomes the shortcomings of both extremes: pure anonymous chains and fully transparent public chains. However, given how mature and solidified traditional financial institutions’ existing business systems are, integrating this native privacy architecture requires reworking existing processes. It’s not something you can simply “plug in” to go live with a security token.
To me, this isn’t a short-term fault-type risk; it’s a structural problem that comes with bringing TradFi on-chain. People are easily drawn in by the privacy-tech narrative—overestimating deployment speed while underestimating the long cycle of compliance transformation and business harmonization on the institutional side. This is also the key variable I’ve continued to pay attention to after reading the opening chapter. #dusk $DUSK
Which core designs does the Dusk network rely on to achieve two-way compatibility between privacy and compliance?
Many people in the market talk about Dusk and only focus on the “privacy L1” label, assuming that an architecture designed to balance privacy and auditability can directly take on RWA assets. But this friend, who has long been coordinating with institutions, pointed out the practical contradiction I previously overlooked: this native design itself inherently carries unavoidable adaptation costs.
Looking back, I revisited Chapter 1 of the whitepaper. The document clearly sets the building of a privacy-and-compliance compliant financial infrastructure as the core goal. By using PLONK zero-knowledge proofs, together with three fundamental primitives—REGISTER, SEND, and CREATE—it encrypts transaction information while reserving an authorization and audit channel. $DUSK covers the costs consumed by contract deployment, proof computation, and other operations within the network.
In theory, it overcomes the shortcomings of both extremes: pure anonymous chains and fully transparent public chains. However, given how mature and solidified traditional financial institutions’ existing business systems are, integrating this native privacy architecture requires reworking existing processes. It’s not something you can simply “plug in” to go live with a security token.
To me, this isn’t a short-term fault-type risk; it’s a structural problem that comes with bringing TradFi on-chain. People are easily drawn in by the privacy-tech narrative—overestimating deployment speed while underestimating the long cycle of compliance transformation and business harmonization on the institutional side. This is also the key variable I’ve continued to pay attention to after reading the opening chapter. #dusk $DUSK
Which core designs does the Dusk network rely on to achieve two-way compatibility between privacy and compliance?
1.是，依靠PLONK证明与REGISTER等基础原语
100%
2.是，交易加密同时预留授权审计通道
0%
3.否，仅依靠通用隐私合约无法完成该目标
0%
1 votes • Voting closed