What caught my attention with DuskFoundation is that “privacy” on Dusk is more nuanced than I expected.
Dusk actually runs two native transaction models: Moonlight, where balances, sender, recipient and amounts are public, and Phoenix, where transfers are shielded with zero-knowledge proofs. Users can selectively reveal information through viewing keys when disclosure is required.
That matters for financial applications because the design isn’t simply “hide everything.” Dusk’s own docs describe transparency as useful for some flows, while privacy is used where confidentiality matters. Even with Phoenix, the public explorer can still expose transaction type and metadata such as fees and gas, depending on the transaction model.
So the interesting question for DUSK isn’t whether privacy exists. It’s whether this selective-visibility model proves practical for regulated markets once real applications generate more complex workflows.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
Dusk actually runs two native transaction models: Moonlight, where balances, sender, recipient and amounts are public, and Phoenix, where transfers are shielded with zero-knowledge proofs. Users can selectively reveal information through viewing keys when disclosure is required.
That matters for financial applications because the design isn’t simply “hide everything.” Dusk’s own docs describe transparency as useful for some flows, while privacy is used where confidentiality matters. Even with Phoenix, the public explorer can still expose transaction type and metadata such as fees and gas, depending on the transaction model.
So the interesting question for DUSK isn’t whether privacy exists. It’s whether this selective-visibility model proves practical for regulated markets once real applications generate more complex workflows.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk