I recently chatted with a few friends who work on large-scale trades and institutional market making, and we discussed the most fatal problem for public chains doing RWA trading. Many people think institutions only care about how fast the TPS is. Actually, when large capital enters, they fear two things most: first, MEV “sockets” in the public mempool and frontrunning/arbitrage; second, the “probabilistic certainty” of transaction settlement.

Think about it: in a traditional institutional setup, if a bond or government bond tokenization trade worth millions of dollars is posted and all parameters are completely transparent on-chain, it will immediately be targeted by bot “clamp” mechanisms that then hammer a wave of slippage. And if you run into network congestion or a fork rollback that causes settlement losses, nobody can afford that.

That’s also why I’ve been closely tracking @Dusk , this underlying public chain. From the ground-layer consensus, Dusk designed the Succinct Attestation (SA) mechanism, directly providing deterministic, second-level finality settlement, completely eliminating fork-rollback risk. More importantly, it uses zero-knowledge proofs to encrypt transaction data before verification, cutting off the arbitrage space for malicious MEV bots right at the protocol layer.

It both ensures that large-capital trades can’t be snooped on or frontrun, and provides deterministic settlement plus compliance audit interfaces. This is what a true institutional-grade financial infrastructure looks like. The token $DUSK , as the core asset staked by network validator nodes and used for computation consumption, has a very clear long-term fundamental logic. If you want to explore truly RWA infrastructure with institutional deployment capability, I suggest you keep tracking the mainnet ecosystem progress of #dusk .

When large capital executes on-chain trades, which pain point do you think is the hardest to solve?