My money, my wallet… but once it’s on the blockchain, almost anyone can sit and scrutinize? 👀
See how much I’m holding, what I transfer to, where it comes from—even sometimes guess what I’m doing.
Transparency is good.
But if you apply this approach to banks, funds, stocks, or institutional assets, it’s a different story.
A company wouldn’t want its competitor to know how much it just bought.
A fund also wouldn’t want the whole market to see every single transaction it makes.
And an investor definitely doesn’t want their entire portfolio to be public just because they use blockchain.
But 100% privacy might not be the answer either.
When the regulator needs an audit, you still need a way to prove:
“I’m compliant, but I don’t want to show all the data to the whole world.”
And this is where I find the thesis of @Dusk quite interesting.
#dusk is not trying to turn blockchain into a black box.
Nor is it forcing everything to be public.
Instead, it’s heading in this direction:
Privacy by default.
Transparency when needed.
That means transactions can be kept confidential, but when the right party with the proper authority needs to verify, they can selectively disclose only the information necessary. Dusk uses shielded transactions, zero-knowledge proofs, and selective disclosure to solve this exact problem.
I really like this way of thinking because it’s more grounded in real life.
In real life, I also don’t have:
“This is all my bank account information—feel free to look.”
But it’s also not:
“No one is allowed to check anything.”
I just want:
The right people → to see the right things.
And that’s exactly the middle ground that Dusk wants to build for regulated finance.
Too public means you lose privacy.
Too private makes compliance difficult.
$DUSK is betting on that middle space
See how much I’m holding, what I transfer to, where it comes from—even sometimes guess what I’m doing.
Transparency is good.
But if you apply this approach to banks, funds, stocks, or institutional assets, it’s a different story.
A company wouldn’t want its competitor to know how much it just bought.
A fund also wouldn’t want the whole market to see every single transaction it makes.
And an investor definitely doesn’t want their entire portfolio to be public just because they use blockchain.
But 100% privacy might not be the answer either.
When the regulator needs an audit, you still need a way to prove:
“I’m compliant, but I don’t want to show all the data to the whole world.”
And this is where I find the thesis of @Dusk quite interesting.
#dusk is not trying to turn blockchain into a black box.
Nor is it forcing everything to be public.
Instead, it’s heading in this direction:
Privacy by default.
Transparency when needed.
That means transactions can be kept confidential, but when the right party with the proper authority needs to verify, they can selectively disclose only the information necessary. Dusk uses shielded transactions, zero-knowledge proofs, and selective disclosure to solve this exact problem.
I really like this way of thinking because it’s more grounded in real life.
In real life, I also don’t have:
“This is all my bank account information—feel free to look.”
But it’s also not:
“No one is allowed to check anything.”
I just want:
The right people → to see the right things.
And that’s exactly the middle ground that Dusk wants to build for regulated finance.
Too public means you lose privacy.
Too private makes compliance difficult.
$DUSK is betting on that middle space