“EVM compatible” solves how developers can get in. What Hedger needs to solve is: after institutions come in, which data should not be made public
Recently I came across an analysis of DuskEVM. The author said something that I couldn’t stop thinking about—“EVM compatible only solves half the problem.”
Solidity, Foundry, Hardhat—these tools let developers reuse the familiar Ethereum toolchain. But the author raised a sharper issue: would institutions really be willing to disclose all balances, positions, and transaction amounts?
The more I think about it, the more I feel this question is the core contradiction in the RWA space. You put securities on-chain—technology isn’t the problem. The problem is that once on-chain, every transaction data point is open for everyone to watch: positions, counterparties, and the flow of funds are all completely transparent. That’s unacceptable in traditional financial markets.
@Dusk
The answer from Dusk’s Hedger module is: homomorphic encryption enables data to participate in computation while staying encrypted, and zero-knowledge proofs ensure that the results satisfy the rules. The data doesn’t necessarily need to be public, but the execution can still be verified.
For market makers, sensitive positions can be hidden. For financial institutions, confidential balances can be protected. And when auditing is required, disclosure can be authorized. In terms of logic, this design really does resolve the “privacy–compliance paradox.”
But the issue is that Hedger is still at the testnet stage. A feature still being tested is being written into the core narrative of institutional RWA. Homomorphic encryption plus zero-knowledge proofs—this combo is valid in theory. But between “theory holds” and institutions actually using it, there are three hurdles: getting the mainnet workflow running, completing load/stress testing, and obtaining regulatory recognition.
EVM compatibility solves how developers get in. Hedger is meant to solve what data absolutely should not be exposed after financial institutions come in. If DuskEVM’s mainnet can ultimately run this confidential EVM workflow, then that’s where I think its real differentiation lies. Until then, “EVM compatible” only solves half the problem.
#dusk $DUSK
Recently I came across an analysis of DuskEVM. The author said something that I couldn’t stop thinking about—“EVM compatible only solves half the problem.”
Solidity, Foundry, Hardhat—these tools let developers reuse the familiar Ethereum toolchain. But the author raised a sharper issue: would institutions really be willing to disclose all balances, positions, and transaction amounts?
The more I think about it, the more I feel this question is the core contradiction in the RWA space. You put securities on-chain—technology isn’t the problem. The problem is that once on-chain, every transaction data point is open for everyone to watch: positions, counterparties, and the flow of funds are all completely transparent. That’s unacceptable in traditional financial markets.
@Dusk
The answer from Dusk’s Hedger module is: homomorphic encryption enables data to participate in computation while staying encrypted, and zero-knowledge proofs ensure that the results satisfy the rules. The data doesn’t necessarily need to be public, but the execution can still be verified.
For market makers, sensitive positions can be hidden. For financial institutions, confidential balances can be protected. And when auditing is required, disclosure can be authorized. In terms of logic, this design really does resolve the “privacy–compliance paradox.”
But the issue is that Hedger is still at the testnet stage. A feature still being tested is being written into the core narrative of institutional RWA. Homomorphic encryption plus zero-knowledge proofs—this combo is valid in theory. But between “theory holds” and institutions actually using it, there are three hurdles: getting the mainnet workflow running, completing load/stress testing, and obtaining regulatory recognition.
EVM compatibility solves how developers get in. Hedger is meant to solve what data absolutely should not be exposed after financial institutions come in. If DuskEVM’s mainnet can ultimately run this confidential EVM workflow, then that’s where I think its real differentiation lies. Until then, “EVM compatible” only solves half the problem.
#dusk $DUSK
