@Dusk Rules, here’s the story. But when I pull up the original travel rules text, it’s clear these two aren’t even the same standard. What the Travel Rules want isn’t “traceable when necessary”; instead, for every cross-institution transfer, the sending institution must pass the sender’s and recipient’s names, addresses, identification numbers, and account address details to the receiving institution. Privacy can only be kept in one place—either privacy stays, or compliance does.
In the EU, it’s even more direct. Under the TFR (Funds Transfer Regulation) plus MiCA, licensed crypto service providers must collect, verify, and screen these information during transfers. If the information is incomplete, they can refuse or return the transfer. Plain English: if you don’t provide your identity, don’t expect to use the legitimate licensed channel.
So what is Dusk hiding? Exactly the items the Travel Rules are trying to get—sender, recipient, and amount. Homomorphic encryption plus zero-knowledge proofs can keep “who sent what amount to whom” hidden; but the Travel Rules demand these fields be handed over as-is. One side wants to hide, the other wants you to disclose—this is a structural mismatch, not a parameter you can tweak away.
I admit that what $DUSK calls “compliant privacy” can, in theory, be compromised via “selective disclosure”—when regulators or designated entities need it, they can use the key to see the details. In practice, at the platform level, privacy is indeed ceded in exchange for compliance.
But the premise of selective disclosure is “there is someone holding the key,” which in reality is the platform, the custodian, or the regulator. The moment your privacy is used for “compliance,” it’s penetrated. So-called “presumed privacy” is basically ineffective for licensed channels. And don’t forget past lessons—there have been cases where交易 platforms took down Monero, Zcash, and Dash under the FATF Travel Rules. The UK also had platforms delist Zcash. Platforms won’t take the risk for you; their options are always delisting, not arguing privacy with regulators.#dusk
Finally, don’t be fooled by “benchmarking against the Travel Rules.” Ask it one question first—benchmarking which half? The half where “I hand over my identity,” or the half where “I can still keep it hidden.” It can’t be both. Dusk’s “compliant privacy”—did it actually find the solution, or did it just find a more expensive reason to get delisted?
In the EU, it’s even more direct. Under the TFR (Funds Transfer Regulation) plus MiCA, licensed crypto service providers must collect, verify, and screen these information during transfers. If the information is incomplete, they can refuse or return the transfer. Plain English: if you don’t provide your identity, don’t expect to use the legitimate licensed channel.
So what is Dusk hiding? Exactly the items the Travel Rules are trying to get—sender, recipient, and amount. Homomorphic encryption plus zero-knowledge proofs can keep “who sent what amount to whom” hidden; but the Travel Rules demand these fields be handed over as-is. One side wants to hide, the other wants you to disclose—this is a structural mismatch, not a parameter you can tweak away.
I admit that what $DUSK calls “compliant privacy” can, in theory, be compromised via “selective disclosure”—when regulators or designated entities need it, they can use the key to see the details. In practice, at the platform level, privacy is indeed ceded in exchange for compliance.
But the premise of selective disclosure is “there is someone holding the key,” which in reality is the platform, the custodian, or the regulator. The moment your privacy is used for “compliance,” it’s penetrated. So-called “presumed privacy” is basically ineffective for licensed channels. And don’t forget past lessons—there have been cases where交易 platforms took down Monero, Zcash, and Dash under the FATF Travel Rules. The UK also had platforms delist Zcash. Platforms won’t take the risk for you; their options are always delisting, not arguing privacy with regulators.#dusk
Finally, don’t be fooled by “benchmarking against the Travel Rules.” Ask it one question first—benchmarking which half? The half where “I hand over my identity,” or the half where “I can still keep it hidden.” It can’t be both. Dusk’s “compliant privacy”—did it actually find the solution, or did it just find a more expensive reason to get delisted?