#dusk $DUSK @Dusk how selective disclosure works on Dusk qalked through one transfer....
was digging through the CreatorPad task and landed on Dusk's Aug 15 piece on SME tokenization buried in the transfer and settlement row of their lifecycle table is this line about eligibility checks running with selective disclosure where supported. Read past it twice before it actually clicked. the thing that stayed with me: selective disclosure isn't a toggle you flip on a transfer.
it's conditional on the counterparty stack. The doc ties it to Dusk's confidential transaction layer Phoenix notes vs Moonlight accounts, but in the SME/NPEX flow it only activates when an administrator or venue is already wired to check eligibility against the ownership record.
So the private by default pitch is true at the protocol level… but at the application level, disclosure only fires where someone built the plumbing for it.
Made me pause on my own assumption I'd been picturing selective disclosure as symmetric, available to any counterparty on any transfer. It's not. It's a permissioned view, granted per integration.
Grabbed a snack mid thought and now I'm just sitting with: who's actually deciding, transfer by transfer, what "permitted party" means in practice?
was digging through the CreatorPad task and landed on Dusk's Aug 15 piece on SME tokenization buried in the transfer and settlement row of their lifecycle table is this line about eligibility checks running with selective disclosure where supported. Read past it twice before it actually clicked. the thing that stayed with me: selective disclosure isn't a toggle you flip on a transfer.
it's conditional on the counterparty stack. The doc ties it to Dusk's confidential transaction layer Phoenix notes vs Moonlight accounts, but in the SME/NPEX flow it only activates when an administrator or venue is already wired to check eligibility against the ownership record.
So the private by default pitch is true at the protocol level… but at the application level, disclosure only fires where someone built the plumbing for it.
Made me pause on my own assumption I'd been picturing selective disclosure as symmetric, available to any counterparty on any transfer. It's not. It's a permissioned view, granted per integration.
Grabbed a snack mid thought and now I'm just sitting with: who's actually deciding, transfer by transfer, what "permitted party" means in practice?