The more I stubbornly dig into the technical documentation for @Dusk , the stronger the unease in my mind grows. It’s now aiming at traditional finance business, but if you’re going to do that, then what everyone should be focusing on shouldn’t be zero-knowledge proofs in the first place—it should be this: in this game, who is the true owner with absolute control?
Recently, they’ve been hyping the idea of putting small and medium-sized enterprise financing on-chain. In an official post on the 15th, they were very straightforward: asset tokenization can’t conjure liquidity out of thin air. To make it work, you have to fully connect the real-world environment—identity verification and underlying settlement.
I completely agree with that view. But when I bring my assumptions and try to dissect the underlying docs, I find an extremely dangerous privilege black box.
To accommodate regulated funds, the mainnet is packed with heavy-handed tools like forced asset forfeiture and on-chain resolutions. And that Citadel identity network is even more outrageous: eligibility is entirely at the mercy of offline institutions, and the power to decide whether transactions can happen—or not—is tightly in someone else’s hands.
In other words, Dusk has long deviated from smart contract autonomy. Instead of that, it has carried the privileges of the traditional world—“setting up checkpoints” and “doing approvals”—and reproduced them on-chain.
The real financial system never could be without backdoors. But what’s hard to accept is that these backdoors’ keys are never clearly explained: who has the authority to trigger liquidation switches? What are the conditions? If the offline reviewers make a mistake, how do you roll back? And where exactly do the power boundaries of different administrators lie? $BTC
Think about this year’s painful lesson from January. When a signature went wrong on a cross-chain bridge, it directly caused more than 10 million of $DUSK to vanish. Even the official sources admitted that the old architecture placed too much trust in a single permission path—at an extremely devastating cost.
At this stage, I have absolutely no desire to keep hearing Dusk tell stories about Wall Street. I only ask you to publicly disclose the handover details of the highest-level privileges.
Technology can achieve privacy without traces, and compliance can be written into promotional slogans. But questions like “who can move my money without my consent” cannot be brushed aside with a single compliance slogan. #dusk
Recently, they’ve been hyping the idea of putting small and medium-sized enterprise financing on-chain. In an official post on the 15th, they were very straightforward: asset tokenization can’t conjure liquidity out of thin air. To make it work, you have to fully connect the real-world environment—identity verification and underlying settlement.
I completely agree with that view. But when I bring my assumptions and try to dissect the underlying docs, I find an extremely dangerous privilege black box.
To accommodate regulated funds, the mainnet is packed with heavy-handed tools like forced asset forfeiture and on-chain resolutions. And that Citadel identity network is even more outrageous: eligibility is entirely at the mercy of offline institutions, and the power to decide whether transactions can happen—or not—is tightly in someone else’s hands.
In other words, Dusk has long deviated from smart contract autonomy. Instead of that, it has carried the privileges of the traditional world—“setting up checkpoints” and “doing approvals”—and reproduced them on-chain.
The real financial system never could be without backdoors. But what’s hard to accept is that these backdoors’ keys are never clearly explained: who has the authority to trigger liquidation switches? What are the conditions? If the offline reviewers make a mistake, how do you roll back? And where exactly do the power boundaries of different administrators lie? $BTC
Think about this year’s painful lesson from January. When a signature went wrong on a cross-chain bridge, it directly caused more than 10 million of $DUSK to vanish. Even the official sources admitted that the old architecture placed too much trust in a single permission path—at an extremely devastating cost.
At this stage, I have absolutely no desire to keep hearing Dusk tell stories about Wall Street. I only ask you to publicly disclose the handover details of the highest-level privileges.
Technology can achieve privacy without traces, and compliance can be written into promotional slogans. But questions like “who can move my money without my consent” cannot be brushed aside with a single compliance slogan. #dusk