#dusk $DUSK @Dusk explorer data today and one number stopped me cold.
Right now, on-chain 252 transactions in the last 24 hours. 231 of those are Moonlight fully public. Only 21 are Phoenix shielded. That's roughly a 91/9 split.
The thing that hit me is the irony of it. @Dusk_Foundation entire pitch is privacy-first finance. Moonlight is the account-based, fully transparent model. Phoenix uses ZK proofs and UTXO commitments to hide amounts, sender-receiver links, and balance changes. Two models designed to coexist but users are overwhelmingly choosing the public one.
Now I don't know why that is. Could be tooling Phoenix is more friction to use. Could be that the current user base is mostly stakers and provisioners running operational transactions that don't need privacy. Could be something else entirely. I genuinely can't confirm the reason from the explorer alone.
What I can say is: if this ratio persists when regulated securities start moving through the network, it would say something interesting about what "compliance-ready privacy" actually means in practice institutions may still default to transparency when a regulator is watching.
The compliance layer and the privacy layer are built to work together. But right now users are using one and barely touching the other. Is that a UX problem, a maturity problem, or just... normal for this stage?
$PORTAL
$GPS
Right now, on-chain 252 transactions in the last 24 hours. 231 of those are Moonlight fully public. Only 21 are Phoenix shielded. That's roughly a 91/9 split.
The thing that hit me is the irony of it. @Dusk_Foundation entire pitch is privacy-first finance. Moonlight is the account-based, fully transparent model. Phoenix uses ZK proofs and UTXO commitments to hide amounts, sender-receiver links, and balance changes. Two models designed to coexist but users are overwhelmingly choosing the public one.
Now I don't know why that is. Could be tooling Phoenix is more friction to use. Could be that the current user base is mostly stakers and provisioners running operational transactions that don't need privacy. Could be something else entirely. I genuinely can't confirm the reason from the explorer alone.
What I can say is: if this ratio persists when regulated securities start moving through the network, it would say something interesting about what "compliance-ready privacy" actually means in practice institutions may still default to transparency when a regulator is watching.
The compliance layer and the privacy layer are built to work together. But right now users are using one and barely touching the other. Is that a UX problem, a maturity problem, or just... normal for this stage?
$PORTAL
$GPS