#dusk $DUSK @Dusk This morning, a couple came to my house to rent a room. When they entered, I noticed they were talking about Dusk. Since I’m also researching Dusk, I joined the conversation and asked them a few questions. It was an interesting and unexpected discussion.

The strange thing about financial transparency is that too much of it can make a market less trustworthy. A system that reveals everything may prove honesty while simultaneously exposing the people using it.
That tension has followed blockchain since the beginning. Public ledgers make verification easy, but financial institutions cannot realistically publish every balance, transaction, or identity detail for everyone to inspect.
This is where I find Dusk interesting—not because it chooses privacy over transparency, but because it questions whether they need to be opposites at all.
Dusk combines public and shielded transaction models with zero-knowledge proofs and selective disclosure. Its Citadel identity layer is designed around proving relevant attributes without unnecessarily exposing underlying information.
The deeper idea is simple: transparency should become permissioned information, not permanent exposure.
But that creates another question. Who decides what must be disclosed, and can those rules remain trustworthy as financial markets become increasingly programmable?@Dusk $HEMI

$METAB