#dusk $DUSK Zedger actually has an unspoken trade-off in order book privacy.
I’ve been looking at the Zedger module from @Dusk lately. The official positioning is a layer that enables matching and settlement for regulated securities. It supports share transfers directly on-chain; in theory, it moves the back- and middle-office work of traditional securities firms into smart contracts. Dusk Network also uses Zedger as the public face of a privacy Layer-1 for tokenized securities. But I’ve had a question I can’t quite figure out: how much should order book privacy be hidden, and to what extent is it appropriate.
If all placed order information is fully encrypted, then the matching engine would have to compare prices and quantities while everything is in ciphertext. This isn’t impossible cryptographically, but it would significantly increase the proof-generation cost for each trade; once throughput drops, the question is whether institutional market makers are willing to run on top of it. On the other hand, if the moment an order is posted it’s already plaintext, then “private” trading of securities is left with only hidden settlement parties—while the pre-trade intent exposure can still be eaten by MEV or sniping strategies, which is nearly fatal for large institutional orders.
The whitepaper’s description of Zedger’s privacy granularity at the matching layer is fairly conceptual and doesn’t specify whether it uses batch auctions, an ATS/dark pool model, or a cryptographic order book. These three paths behave very differently in terms of latency, fairness, and regulatory auditability—choosing one basically determines whether Zedger can truly win over the real security issuers.
The confidential contract framework provided by XSC gives the underlying capability, but the matching logic itself is an application-layer design issue. Ultimately it depends on what the later team decides to trade off.
The security tokenization narrative that $DUSK wants to tell, the disclosure of Zedger’s matching model, is an observation point you can’t avoid. Until this part is made clear, the valuation anchor is essentially imaginary.
@Dusk $BTC