Complete on-chain transparency would expose institutions’ trading strategies and order flow. Hedger uses cryptographic technology to separate and verify credentials from original data, grants information viewing permissions by role, and addresses institutions’ core concerns.$DUSK
Post
Felix-是大飞呀
·
--
BullishIf one day, huge amounts of stocks, bonds, funds, and other real-world assets are all moved onto the blockchain, what do you think institutions are most worried about?
Not TPS.
Not necessarily the fees, either.
I think the real thing that makes institutions hesitate might be a question that seems to fit the spirit of blockchain the most:
It’s too transparent.
In recent years, the industry has been emphasizing on-chain transparency. How much someone moved, where assets are held, and what the transactions and balances are can all be publicly verified.
For ordinary users, that’s a form of trust.
But for financial institutions, things may be completely different.
An institution would not want its competitors to know its holdings changes at any time. It also would not want its trading strategies, fund flows, and customer information permanently exposed on a public ledger.
That’s also why I recently found Hedger so interesting while re-investigating @Dusk .
Dusk didn’t simply choose between “transparency” and “privacy.” Instead, it tried to split them apart: verification can be public, but the data doesn’t necessarily need to be.
Hedger uses zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic encryption so applications can complete verifiable execution while protecting sensitive information. When it needs to be public, it’s public. When it needs protection, it’s protected.
This actually changed my understanding of privacy chains.
Real advanced privacy isn’t about making everything disappear.
It’s about giving information its own boundaries.
Dusk’s documentation also clearly designs around regulated-market processes such as eligibility, disclosure, transfer restrictions, and settlement.
So now I’m increasingly convinced that what Dusk is truly trying to solve isn’t “how to make blockchains more private.”
It’s a more practical question:
Once financial markets are truly on-chain, should we let everyone see everything, or should different people see only what they’re supposed to see?
If in the future RWA competition shifts from “who can move assets on-chain” to “who can make institutions feel comfortable keeping those assets on-chain,” then privacy may just be the first step.
What’s truly important may be:
Who has the information, who can verify it, and who has the right to view it.
And that may be exactly what makes Dusk worth long-term attention.#dusk $DUSK
What do you think is the most “ludicrous” thing about Dusk?
Not TPS.
Not necessarily the fees, either.
I think the real thing that makes institutions hesitate might be a question that seems to fit the spirit of blockchain the most:
It’s too transparent.
In recent years, the industry has been emphasizing on-chain transparency. How much someone moved, where assets are held, and what the transactions and balances are can all be publicly verified.
For ordinary users, that’s a form of trust.
But for financial institutions, things may be completely different.
An institution would not want its competitors to know its holdings changes at any time. It also would not want its trading strategies, fund flows, and customer information permanently exposed on a public ledger.
That’s also why I recently found Hedger so interesting while re-investigating @Dusk .
Dusk didn’t simply choose between “transparency” and “privacy.” Instead, it tried to split them apart: verification can be public, but the data doesn’t necessarily need to be.
Hedger uses zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic encryption so applications can complete verifiable execution while protecting sensitive information. When it needs to be public, it’s public. When it needs protection, it’s protected.
This actually changed my understanding of privacy chains.
Real advanced privacy isn’t about making everything disappear.
It’s about giving information its own boundaries.
Dusk’s documentation also clearly designs around regulated-market processes such as eligibility, disclosure, transfer restrictions, and settlement.
So now I’m increasingly convinced that what Dusk is truly trying to solve isn’t “how to make blockchains more private.”
It’s a more practical question:
Once financial markets are truly on-chain, should we let everyone see everything, or should different people see only what they’re supposed to see?
If in the future RWA competition shifts from “who can move assets on-chain” to “who can make institutions feel comfortable keeping those assets on-chain,” then privacy may just be the first step.
What’s truly important may be:
Who has the information, who can verify it, and who has the right to view it.
And that may be exactly what makes Dusk worth long-term attention.#dusk $DUSK
What do you think is the most “ludicrous” thing about Dusk?
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No advice. Binance AI may be used without guarantee. See T&Cs.