#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
So who decides whether you may hold a tokenized asset, and how is that checked without knowing everything about you?
I never thought about either half. I assumed the asset gets created, people buy it, and the paperwork happens somewhere out of sight.
The sequence runs the other way. Before anything trades, the issuer defines the asset, the eligibility requirements, and the rules governing its life. Only then does anything move. Issuance is really an act of rule-writing, and the token is close to a by-product.
That creates a problem I had not connected to it. If the rules depend on facts about a person, checking them normally means storing those facts. And in Europe, personal information carries rights, including in some cases the right to be erased. A ledger built so nothing can ever be erased sits awkwardly beside that.
The only clean resolution is to keep the personal data off the permanent record entirely and put a proof there instead. If the information was never written, the erasure question mostly answers itself.
Which brings in the third piece, and it decides whether any of this is realistic. Proofs are only useful if checking them is affordable. I had assumed serious cryptography and smart contracts were a bad match — possible, but too expensive for ordinary use. Dusk treats proof verification as a native capability rather than something each contract rebuilds.
What I still cannot judge is how this holds when an application genuinely needs to know something about a person to serve them, which describes most of regulated finance.
From here I read privacy claims differently. The strongest version is not stronger encryption. It is arranging things so the sensitive data was never recorded at all.
So who decides whether you may hold a tokenized asset, and how is that checked without knowing everything about you?
I never thought about either half. I assumed the asset gets created, people buy it, and the paperwork happens somewhere out of sight.
The sequence runs the other way. Before anything trades, the issuer defines the asset, the eligibility requirements, and the rules governing its life. Only then does anything move. Issuance is really an act of rule-writing, and the token is close to a by-product.
That creates a problem I had not connected to it. If the rules depend on facts about a person, checking them normally means storing those facts. And in Europe, personal information carries rights, including in some cases the right to be erased. A ledger built so nothing can ever be erased sits awkwardly beside that.
The only clean resolution is to keep the personal data off the permanent record entirely and put a proof there instead. If the information was never written, the erasure question mostly answers itself.
Which brings in the third piece, and it decides whether any of this is realistic. Proofs are only useful if checking them is affordable. I had assumed serious cryptography and smart contracts were a bad match — possible, but too expensive for ordinary use. Dusk treats proof verification as a native capability rather than something each contract rebuilds.
What I still cannot judge is how this holds when an application genuinely needs to know something about a person to serve them, which describes most of regulated finance.
From here I read privacy claims differently. The strongest version is not stronger encryption. It is arranging things so the sensitive data was never recorded at all.