Dusk says you should take control of your own identity. But that identity needs a third party to issue it.
I only found out today that my dad lied to me for 19 years.
It’s not a bad thing—it’s a well-intentioned lie.
But in that moment I realized that all my understanding is built on one assumption—that the person telling the story is trustworthy.
Citadel is Dusk’s self-sovereign identity system. Users apply to a License Provider for credentials; they can access specific services only after getting those credentials. The entire process is done via zero-knowledge proofs. The service verifies that you’re authorized, but doesn’t know who you are.
I agree with the design direction. Don’t reveal identity—just prove eligibility.
But when I read the documentation, I got stuck on a question nobody seems to have ever asked.
The License Provider is a key role in the protocol—users’ credentials are issued by the LP. If the LP has problems, the credentials may become invalid.
Who can become a License Provider? What are the entry requirements? How many LPs are operating? If an LP stops operating, what happens to users who rely on it to issue credentials?
Zero-knowledge proofs protect user privacy. But the validity of the credentials themselves depends on the License Provider continuing to exist.
My dad told a story for 19 years, and I believed it was the real world. The LP issued a credential, and the user assumed it was a reliable identity.
Both things are built on a single premise: the issuer is trustworthy and persistent.
After the January 2026 exploit, DuskEVM was only just relaunched. The mainnet is currently being tested in a real environment. DUSK’s market cap is about $26.63 million, down more than 90% from its all-time high.
Citadel’s paper was published in 2023. There’s an implementation on GitHub, and the protocol is described in the documentation.
But I couldn’t find: how many real License Providers are actually operating on the mainnet, and what mechanism handles user credentials if an LP disappears.
I focused on one signal: whether Dusk has publicly released Citadel’s list of LPs and the mechanism that guarantees credential validity.
Yes: the reliability of a self-sovereign identity system is built on verifiable foundations.
No: privacy is real, but whether the LPs the credentials depend on are sustainable is unknown to users.
A: LP competition will form naturally, and users can choose multiple LPs to spread risk.
B: LP entry and ongoing availability are opaque, and Citadel’s identity credentials rely on a role users can’t control.
Which side are you on?
Not investment advice—there are risks in trading. DYOR.$BTC
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #BinanceSquare $ETH
I only found out today that my dad lied to me for 19 years.
It’s not a bad thing—it’s a well-intentioned lie.
But in that moment I realized that all my understanding is built on one assumption—that the person telling the story is trustworthy.
Citadel is Dusk’s self-sovereign identity system. Users apply to a License Provider for credentials; they can access specific services only after getting those credentials. The entire process is done via zero-knowledge proofs. The service verifies that you’re authorized, but doesn’t know who you are.
I agree with the design direction. Don’t reveal identity—just prove eligibility.
But when I read the documentation, I got stuck on a question nobody seems to have ever asked.
The License Provider is a key role in the protocol—users’ credentials are issued by the LP. If the LP has problems, the credentials may become invalid.
Who can become a License Provider? What are the entry requirements? How many LPs are operating? If an LP stops operating, what happens to users who rely on it to issue credentials?
Zero-knowledge proofs protect user privacy. But the validity of the credentials themselves depends on the License Provider continuing to exist.
My dad told a story for 19 years, and I believed it was the real world. The LP issued a credential, and the user assumed it was a reliable identity.
Both things are built on a single premise: the issuer is trustworthy and persistent.
After the January 2026 exploit, DuskEVM was only just relaunched. The mainnet is currently being tested in a real environment. DUSK’s market cap is about $26.63 million, down more than 90% from its all-time high.
Citadel’s paper was published in 2023. There’s an implementation on GitHub, and the protocol is described in the documentation.
But I couldn’t find: how many real License Providers are actually operating on the mainnet, and what mechanism handles user credentials if an LP disappears.
I focused on one signal: whether Dusk has publicly released Citadel’s list of LPs and the mechanism that guarantees credential validity.
Yes: the reliability of a self-sovereign identity system is built on verifiable foundations.
No: privacy is real, but whether the LPs the credentials depend on are sustainable is unknown to users.
A: LP competition will form naturally, and users can choose multiple LPs to spread risk.
B: LP entry and ongoing availability are opaque, and Citadel’s identity credentials rely on a role users can’t control.
Which side are you on?
Not investment advice—there are risks in trading. DYOR.$BTC
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #BinanceSquare $ETH