#dusk $DUSK @Dusk I started wondering why proving I’m eligible for something usually means handing over my entire identity.
Imagine a nightclub checking whether you’re over 18.
Would it make sense for the bouncer to photocopy your entire passport just to verify one fact.
That’s basically the problem I found when looking deeper into digital KYC.
The institution needs to know.
“Does this person meet the requirement?
But traditional verification often gives it much more.
name, address, date of birth, document details.
So I looked at how DUSK approaches this with Citadel.
Citadel uses zero-knowledge proofs so a user can prove they hold a valid credential without exposing the underlying information itself. Its protocol can issue a license on-chain, then let the user prove possession of a valid license when requesting a service.
That changes the relationship between KYC and privacy.
Instead of.
“Here is my identity. Check everything.
It becomes.
“Here is cryptographic proof that I satisfy the requirement.
And I think that explains why DUSK needed Citadel.
If the goal is to bring regulated finance on-chain, compliance can't simply disappear.
But neither should every financial interaction require another copy of someone's personal data.
The interesting question isn't whether KYC should exist.
It's.
How much information should proving eligibility actually require you to reveal?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
#dusk
Imagine a nightclub checking whether you’re over 18.
Would it make sense for the bouncer to photocopy your entire passport just to verify one fact.
That’s basically the problem I found when looking deeper into digital KYC.
The institution needs to know.
“Does this person meet the requirement?
But traditional verification often gives it much more.
name, address, date of birth, document details.
So I looked at how DUSK approaches this with Citadel.
Citadel uses zero-knowledge proofs so a user can prove they hold a valid credential without exposing the underlying information itself. Its protocol can issue a license on-chain, then let the user prove possession of a valid license when requesting a service.
That changes the relationship between KYC and privacy.
Instead of.
“Here is my identity. Check everything.
It becomes.
“Here is cryptographic proof that I satisfy the requirement.
And I think that explains why DUSK needed Citadel.
If the goal is to bring regulated finance on-chain, compliance can't simply disappear.
But neither should every financial interaction require another copy of someone's personal data.
The interesting question isn't whether KYC should exist.
It's.
How much information should proving eligibility actually require you to reveal?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK
#dusk