$ETH Over the past two days, I’ve been repeatedly thinking about one thing: when everything is publicly posted on-chain, why would institutions even come in? The tokenized bond holdings and liquidation prices are all made public, and the compliance team is the first to object. If anyone can flip open your hidden cards, how could this business possibly be done?
Privacy isn’t the same as hiding. I wrestled with the distinction for a long time before it finally clicked. What Dusk is doing is controlled disclosure: the things that regulators need to see are verified to them using zero-knowledge proofs; the things that should not be shown to counterparties are ciphertext on-chain. These two paths sound contradictory, but they’re actually the same idea.
Speaking of “privacy”—in the crypto world, that word has a pretty bad reputation. Mention it and people immediately think money laundering. But what institutions want is something else entirely: trade secrets. Which of these can be posted on a public ledger—pricing, positions, counterparties?
And then there’s XSC. Contract standards bake compliance into the protocol layer. It’s not a front-end pop-up reminding people, and it’s not something you audit after something goes wrong as a remedy. The rules themselves are the execution environment—hard-coded into the code—so no one can get around them. This might be the missing piece that on-chain securities lack.
Take it one step further: if regulators ultimately insist on full transparency, regulated assets can never get onto the chain. Then privacy chains become the only viable entry point. This scenario might be wrong, but it’s worth keeping in mind.
So from my perspective, DUSK is a bit biased. It isn’t just another privacy public chain; it’s more like it’s trying to pave the way to put regulated assets on-chain. Whether it will work or not is hard to say. But I’m pretty sure transparent chains can’t do this.
That’s enough for now. I’ll keep thinking while I write, and some parts might not be fully thought through. #dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Privacy isn’t the same as hiding. I wrestled with the distinction for a long time before it finally clicked. What Dusk is doing is controlled disclosure: the things that regulators need to see are verified to them using zero-knowledge proofs; the things that should not be shown to counterparties are ciphertext on-chain. These two paths sound contradictory, but they’re actually the same idea.
Speaking of “privacy”—in the crypto world, that word has a pretty bad reputation. Mention it and people immediately think money laundering. But what institutions want is something else entirely: trade secrets. Which of these can be posted on a public ledger—pricing, positions, counterparties?
And then there’s XSC. Contract standards bake compliance into the protocol layer. It’s not a front-end pop-up reminding people, and it’s not something you audit after something goes wrong as a remedy. The rules themselves are the execution environment—hard-coded into the code—so no one can get around them. This might be the missing piece that on-chain securities lack.
Take it one step further: if regulators ultimately insist on full transparency, regulated assets can never get onto the chain. Then privacy chains become the only viable entry point. This scenario might be wrong, but it’s worth keeping in mind.
So from my perspective, DUSK is a bit biased. It isn’t just another privacy public chain; it’s more like it’s trying to pave the way to put regulated assets on-chain. Whether it will work or not is hard to say. But I’m pretty sure transparent chains can’t do this.
That’s enough for now. I’ll keep thinking while I write, and some parts might not be fully thought through. #dusk $DUSK @Dusk