Privacy payments were already a red ocean, yet Dusk chose to bite into tough financial problems instead. At first, I really thought it was foolish.

I also wondered at first—privacy payments are so straightforward. User needs are direct. Monero and Zcash are already doing it. Why does Dusk insist on things like tokenizing securities and RWA? Isn’t that making things harder for itself? Later, after reading the whitepaper, I realized that while privacy payments look exciting, they’re actually a trap.

First, regulatory risk is extremely high. It’s not news that privacy-payment projects get delisted by exchanges and end up under regulatory scrutiny. If Dusk also goes down this road, it’s basically stepping on a mine as soon as it leaves the door. Second, in payment scenarios, privacy needs aren’t that big. In everyday payments, people care about speed and cost—not anonymity. Third, payments are only the transfer of money; financial applications are about pricing, lending and borrowing, issuing, and settlement. The market space simply isn’t on the same scale.

Dusk’s XSC standard can handle the complex logic of securities issuance, interest payments, and redemptions, and it can also deliver auditable privacy—so regulators can see compliance, and institutions will dare to move in. Now it mainly targets tokenized securities in Europe, clearly aiming at big money, not fighting over the small change that privacy payments might offer. The more I look, the more I feel—this isn’t foolishness at all; it’s clarity.

Do you think Dusk avoiding privacy payments and focusing on financial applications is the right move?

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk