I kept seeing selective disclosure across @Dusk material, so I went looking for the actual point where the protocol decides who gets to see what.
The docs led me through three different pieces.
Moonlight handles public account activity.
Phoenix handles shielded transfers.
Citadel lets a user prove an attribute such as residency or investor status without revealing the rest of their identity.
So far, clear.
Then I reached the Assets & Regulations page and found the detail that made me pause.
Dusk describes selective disclosure as a pattern, but says the exact access-control design depends on the legal and product requirements of the asset.
That means Dusk provides the privacy and identity tools, but it does not appear to impose one universal disclosure policy on every application.
The issuer, venue or application still has to decide which credential is accepted, which transfer should fail and which party is allowed to receive specific information.
That changed how I was looking at the privacy claim.
The blockchain can hide a position from the public and prove that the holder is eligible. But the difficult part has not disappeared. It has moved into the rules surrounding the asset.
For example, a tokenized bond issuer may need ownership data for servicing. A venue may only need proof that a buyer is eligible. A regulator may need transaction records for a defined investigation.
Those three parties should not automatically receive the same view.
Dusk’s architecture can support that separation. But the quality of the final system will depend on how carefully each application defines those permissions and who is able to change them later.
This is the part I would inspect before focusing on the ZK language.
Not simply whether the data is private, but who writes the disclosure policy for the first live assets on Dusk, and whether investors can see those rules before entering the market.
#dusk $DUSK
What matters most in Dusk’s disclosure policy?