Public blockchains are often praised for radical transparency, and for good reason. But transparency has a cost that doesn't get discussed enough.

Imagine a hedge fund building a position on-chain. On a fully transparent ledger, every wallet watching can see the accumulation happening in real time. That information is valuable, and competitors or opportunistic traders can act on it before the position is even complete. This isn't hypothetical behavior; front-running and copy-trading based on visible on-chain activity are well documented problems in public DeFi today.

The same issue applies to businesses. A public balance sheet, updated live, block by block, tells suppliers, competitors, and counterparties far more than most companies would ever willingly disclose.

This is why full transparency, despite its benefits for auditability and trust, can actually work against adoption by serious financial institutions. They're not opposed to blockchains in principle. Many are opposed to broadcasting their trading books to the internet.

@Dusk_Foundation 's argument is that confidentiality isn't a workaround for this problem, it's a requirement for certain categories of financial activity to move on-chain at all. $DUSK network was built around that premise from the start. Worth sitting with, even if you're skeptical of how far #dusk can push it. $HEMI

Do you think financial institutions will ever go fully on-chain? 🤔