Zoya Research

I kept coming back to one question while looking at Dusk and NPEX:

Can a regulated market be auditable without turning every investor’s financial activity into public data?

NPEX makes this more than a theoretical question. Dusk’s work with the regulated Dutch exchange gives that question a real-world context: regulated securities, investors and market infrastructure have to operate within rules that require both oversight and confidentiality.

That creates a specific problem.

A regulator may need to verify that an investor is eligible or that a transaction follows the required conditions. But that does not automatically mean every other market participant should see the underlying financial information.

This is where Dusk’s architecture gets interesting.

Its Phoenix transaction model keeps balances and transfers shielded, while zero-knowledge proofs can establish transaction validity without exposing the underlying details. When additional evidence is required, viewing keys can provide selective access.

So privacy here isn’t simply about hiding data.

It changes the question from “Is the information public?” to “Who needs to prove or see what?”

But the real test is what happens when an actual regulated security moves through this workflow: who can see what, who can prove what, and how much manual coordination is still required behind the scenes?

That’s the part I don’t think should be assumed.

If those permissions can actually be enforced onchain across investors, issuers, venues and supervisors, does privacy become more than a compliance feature — does it become part of the market infrastructure itself?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

Je suis retourné aujourd’hui dans le modèle de confidentialité de Dusk, parce qu’une seule question n’arrêtait pas de me tracasser : si les marchés régulés ont encore besoin de visibilité, qu’est-ce que la confidentialité protège exactement ?

Plus j’y réfléchissais, moins je pense que la réponse soit simplement « masquer la transaction ».

Une institution financière peut avoir besoin de prouver qu’un événement s’est produit, tandis qu’un concurrent n’a aucune raison de voir la position sous-jacente, le solde ou d’autres informations sensibles.

Cela crée un problème différent.

Ce n’est pas vraiment de la confidentialité contre de la transparence. Il s’agit plutôt de savoir si différents participants peuvent avoir des niveaux d’accès différents au même processus financier.

C’est là que l’idée de confidentialité programmable de Dusk a attiré mon attention.

Les informations sensibles peuvent rester protégées tandis que des parties autorisées peuvent tout de même recevoir ce dont elles ont besoin pour l’analyse. Pour la finance réglementée, cette distinction paraît plus utile que de simplement appeler quelque chose une « blockchain privée ».

La partie difficile consiste à déterminer comment ces autorisations doivent fonctionner entre les régulateurs, les émetteurs, les investisseurs et les autres participants, sans transformer chaque transaction en un enregistrement entièrement public.

C’est le point que je continue d’observer.

Si différents participants ont besoin de niveaux de visibilité différents, la confidentialité programmable peut-elle devenir une manière pratique d’équilibrer la confidentialité et la supervision réglementaire ?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I used to think privacy in financial markets mostly meant hiding sensitive information from public view.

The more I look at Dusk, the more I think that definition is too narrow.

What caught my attention is the idea of programmable privacy: keeping sensitive information confidential where it needs to be, while still allowing the right information to be disclosed when an authorized party needs to review it.

That distinction matters in regulated markets.

A financial application doesn’t necessarily need every piece of data to be visible to everyone. It needs the right parties to be able to verify what they are entitled to verify, while the underlying sensitive information remains protected.

That makes privacy feel less like a switch between “public” and “private” and more like something that can be built into the way financial applications operate.

That’s what makes Dusk’s XSC approach interesting to me: it raises the question of how confidentiality can coexist with compliance-oriented asset rules and settlement.

But I’m still wondering how far programmable privacy can go in real institutional workflows.

If regulated markets need privacy, transparency and authorized disclosure at the same time, can programmable privacy actually reduce the complexity of traditional financial data sharing?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I used to think EVM compatibility mainly solved the developer onboarding problem.

If DuskEVM supports familiar Ethereum languages and tooling, including Solidity and Vyper, developers can start building without learning an entirely different smart-contract environment first.

That matters.

But the more I look at Dusk in the context of financial applications, the more I think that only solves one layer of the problem.

A developer can deploy an application using familiar tools. That doesn’t automatically answer who is allowed to interact with it, what information should remain confidential, how eligibility is enforced, or how the application fits into the wider financial workflow.

That distinction caught my attention.

EVM compatibility can reduce the coding barrier.

It may not reduce the institutional complexity around the application.

And for regulated financial markets, that second part could be the harder problem.

I’m still watching how these two layers come together.

If DuskEVM makes building familiar, does the real bottleneck simply move from developer adoption to institutional integration?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I kept coming back to Dusk Trade today because calling it a “neobroker” doesn’t really explain what caught my attention.

The interesting part isn’t just being able to buy or sell a tokenized bond, fund, or other financial asset.

It’s what has to happen around that trade.

An investor may need to discover the asset, complete eligibility checks, connect a wallet, place an order, and then have the asset and payment legs coordinated through settlement.

What caught my attention is how Dusk Trade approaches those workflows rather than treating the token as the whole product.

That made me rethink the usual RWA narrative.

The hard part may not be putting a financial asset onchain.

It may be making the steps around that asset work together without recreating the same fragmented process behind a new interface.

That’s where I’m still unsure.

If Dusk Trade can bring onboarding, trading and settlement closer together, does that actually remove infrastructure complexity — or just move the complexity into the application layer?

I think that’s the part worth watching as tokenized markets become more practical.

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

Je suis retourné sur DuskEVM aujourd’hui parce que je voulais comprendre ce que modifie réellement la compatibilité EVM au-delà du titre.

Un détail m’a frappé : DuskEVM est conçu pour fonctionner avec des langages et des outils de développement Ethereum familiers, y compris Solidity et Vyper.

Cela compte, car les développeurs n’ont pas nécessairement besoin d’apprendre un tout nouvel environnement de contrats intelligents pour commencer à construire sur Dusk.

Mais ensuite, j’ai commencé à me demander ce qui se passe après cette première étape.

Si le déploiement d’une application devient plus simple, les questions plus difficiles pour les applications financières ne disparaissent pas.

Qui est autorisé à interagir avec elle ?
Quelles informations doivent rester confidentielles ?
Comment les exigences de conformité sont-elles appliquées ?
Et comment l’application se connecte-t-elle au reste du flux de travail financier ?

Je ne pense donc pas que la compatibilité EVM soit, à elle seule, la partie la plus intéressante.

La partie la plus intéressante, c’est de savoir si l’infrastructure de développement familière peut réellement conduire à des applications qui fonctionnent dans de vraies contraintes institutionnelles.

Si DuskEVM réduit la barrière pour les développeurs, quel devient le prochain goulot d’étranglement pour amener des applications financières à un usage réel ?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I’ve noticed the interesting part of @TermMax isn’t just that rates are fixed. It’s that the rate can be structured around how much of an order actually gets filled.

TermMax Range Orders use pricing curves with different segments. In a borrowing range order, earlier portions can carry higher APRs and later portions lower APRs as the order fills. For lending, the curve works in the opposite direction, with rates increasing across the defined portions.

That made me look at the order itself differently.

A range order isn’t simply saying, “this is my rate.” It defines how the rate can respond as different amounts of liquidity are taken.

But that also creates an interesting tension: the curve only matters if the market actually fills it. TermMax’s documentation also highlights unutilized capital and poorly configured pricing curves as risks for range-order setters.

So what I want to watch is how these curves behave when real demand moves through different order sizes.

Can the curve structure discover useful rates in practice, or does its effectiveness depend too heavily on getting the demand profile right?

#TermMax @TermMax

I still think most RWA conversations treat tokenization like the finish line.

Put an existing asset onchain, give it a digital representation, and suddenly it sounds like the financial asset itself has moved onchain.

But the more I look at Dusk’s approach to native issuance, the more I think there’s an important distinction.

Tokenization can represent an asset that already exists elsewhere. Native issuance starts from a different point: the infrastructure can be designed to carry more of the asset’s lifecycle onchain, depending on the legal and product setup.

That difference caught my attention.

Because if issuance happens in one system, ownership is tracked somewhere else, and transfers or settlement still depend on separate records, putting a token onchain doesn’t necessarily remove the underlying infrastructure problem.

So to me, the interesting part of native issuance isn’t simply creating another token.

It’s the possibility of reducing the gap between the digital asset and the financial infrastructure responsible for it.

I’m still cautious about how far that can actually go in regulated markets. Legal ownership, authorized intermediaries and operational responsibilities don’t disappear just because an asset is represented onchain.

So the real test for me isn’t how many RWAs can be tokenized.

If native issuance can move more of an asset’s lifecycle onto the ledger, what part of the traditional financial infrastructure becomes hardest to replace?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I still think the interesting part of @TermMax is that one order doesn’t necessarily mean one rate.

TermMax range orders use pricing curves where different portions of an order can have different fixed APRs. As an order gets filled, the applicable rate moves along the curve instead of staying the same across the entire amount.

That made me look at TermMax less like a single-rate market and more like a market where order size itself becomes part of the pricing.

A borrowing range order can start at a higher APR and move toward lower rates as more of the order is filled. Lending curves work in the opposite direction, with rates increasing across the defined portions.

What I find interesting is what happens when these predefined curves meet actual demand. The curve sets the available terms, but market activity determines which portions actually get filled.

So I’m curious:

Can changing order size become a meaningful source of rate discovery on TermMax?

#TermMax @TermMax

I still think “fixed rate” can make a position sound more static than it actually is.

On TermMax, an FT represents the right to redeem 1 debt token at maturity. Before maturity, FTs can trade at a discount, while the holder can also keep them until maturity for redemption.

That made me look at fixed-rate positions differently.

The rate may be defined, but the market price of the FT still has time attached to it. As maturity gets closer, the gap between what the FT trades for and what it represents at maturity becomes a different part of the decision.

What I’m curious about is how that relationship behaves when liquidity changes and traders want to exit at different points before maturity.

Does the value of a fixed-rate position become more about the rate, or the time left to maturity?

#TermMax @TermMax

I still think the most interesting question around DuskEVM isn’t whether developers can use familiar EVM tooling.

It’s what happens when familiar EVM development meets the privacy requirements of regulated finance.

DuskEVM is designed as the EVM-compatible application layer in the Dusk stack, while Hedger is the privacy module for EVM workflows. What caught my attention is that Hedger uses homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs to support confidential transaction flows.

That creates an interesting tension.

In normal public blockchain environments, transparency makes verification easier. But financial institutions often have information that cannot simply be exposed to everyone.

So the challenge becomes more specific: can transactions remain confidential while still allowing the right information to be verified or disclosed when required?

My observation is that this is a much harder problem than simply “adding privacy” to an EVM environment.

I’m interested to see how this architecture behaves when real financial applications start using it.

If institutions need selective disclosure, who should ultimately control what becomes visible: the application, the regulator, or the protocol?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I keep coming back to one question when I look at tokenized financial assets:

What happens after the asset gets onchain?

At first, I thought tokenization was the hard part. But the more I look at @Dusk, the more I think the bigger challenge is building a market around those assets.

That’s what caught my attention about Dusk Trade.

It’s being built as the application layer for tokenized financial assets on DuskEVM, with instruments like MMFs, ETFs and bonds designed to operate within a regulated market structure.

And that distinction matters.

A tokenized bond can exist onchain, but investors still need onboarding, ownership records, controlled transfers, trading and settlement. If those processes remain fragmented across different systems, putting the asset onchain only solves part of the problem.

To me, the real test isn’t simply how many assets can be tokenized. It’s whether the infrastructure around them becomes usable enough for those assets to actually function in a regulated market.

That’s the part of Dusk Trade I’m watching most closely.

If the asset is onchain but most of the market around it still runs offchain, has tokenization really changed the financial market itself?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I still think the harder part of fixed-rate markets is not setting a rate. It’s what happens when that rate meets actual order flow.

TermMax V2 lets curators define pricing through range-order curves, while orders can be aggregated into the same market. FT represents the fixed-rate position, and it can be traded before maturity rather than only being held until the end.

That made me look at fixed-rate markets differently.

The rate is only one part of the position. Maturity also matters: an FT has a defined maturity, and its value changes as the remaining time to maturity changes.

What I want to see is how these mechanics behave when different curves, maturities, liquidity and real order flow start interacting in live markets.

Want to watch this in practice.

#TermMax @TermMax

I still think most RWA conversations focus too much on the moment an asset becomes a token.

The more I look at Dusk, the more I think the harder problem starts after tokenization.

An asset still has to be issued, transferred, serviced and eventually settled. If those steps continue to depend on separate systems, putting the asset onchain doesn’t necessarily mean the financial process itself has moved onchain.

That’s what caught my attention about Dusk’s native issuance approach: it is designed to support more of the asset lifecycle on the ledger itself, rather than treating tokenization as the finish line.

Dusk Trade makes this even more interesting. It brings instruments such as MMFs, ETFs and bonds into a regulated market structure built around tokenized financial assets.

My observation: the real challenge for RWA adoption may not be tokenization at all. It may be connecting issuance, ownership, trading and settlement without losing the rules that financial markets already depend on.

If the asset is onchain but most of its lifecycle still happens elsewhere, how much of the financial market has actually moved onchain?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

Je pense toujours que les gens sous-estiment à quel point la confidentialité devient difficile dès que de vraies institutions financières entrent en jeu.

Ce qui a retenu mon attention avec Dusk, c’est que la pile ne se résume pas à masquer des transactions. DuskEVM offre une voie compatible EVM pour les applications, tandis que Hedger est conçu pour des flux EVM confidentiels utilisant le chiffrement homomorphe et des preuves à connaissance nulle, avec divulgation sélective lorsque les parties autorisées ont besoin d’informations précises.

Puis vient la partie la plus difficile : qui peut voir quoi ?

Une application financière peut avoir besoin de confidentialité vis-à-vis du public, tandis qu’un régulateur ou un auditeur autorisé peut encore avoir besoin d’informations spécifiques pour la vérification ou la conformité.

Mon observation : la confidentialité est relativement facile à décrire. Décider qui a le droit de voir quoi, et selon quelles conditions, c’est là que naît la véritable tension institutionnelle.

Si les institutions ont besoin de divulgation sélective, qui devrait finalement contrôler ce qui devient visible : l’application, le régulateur ou le protocole ?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Je pense encore que la partie la plus difficile de la mise en place de la finance sur la blockchain n’est pas la blockchain elle-même.

Ce qui m’a particulièrement intéressé par Dusk, c’est l’infrastructure qui l’entoure : NPEX apporte sa position sur un marché réglementé, tandis que Chainlink fournit l’interopérabilité et des rails de données de marché vérifiées. Ce qui m’intéresse, c’est la façon dont ces éléments pourraient relier l’émission, la négociation et le règlement, sans les séparer des règles sous lesquelles fonctionnent déjà les marchés financiers.

Mon constat : c’est là que la « tokenisation » commence à devenir une véritable infrastructure de marché.

Si la technologie fonctionne, quel devient le véritable goulot d’étranglement pour l’adoption : la réglementation, l’interopérabilité ou la confiance institutionnelle ?

I still think most RWA discussions stop too early.

Tokenization can put a representation of an asset onchain, but the underlying lifecycle may still depend on offchain systems. Dusk’s native issuance approach goes further, with issuance, transfers, servicing and settlement designed around the onchain ledger.

My observation: the real breakthrough isn’t putting assets onchain — it’s reducing the gap between the asset and the infrastructure managing it.

But can this model work at the scale and regulatory complexity of real financial markets?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I still think people are overlooking the most interesting part of Dusk.

DuskEVM brings familiar EVM development, while Hedger adds confidential transaction flows using homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. What caught my attention is that privacy doesn’t mean giving up verifiable execution or selective disclosure when authorized review is needed.

My observation: this feels much closer to what regulated finance actually needs onchain.

But can Dusk prove this architecture works at real institutional scale?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

I went looking for how vaultBTC moves on-chain, expecting it to behave like WBTC. It doesn't.

WBTC can move almost anywhere—wallets, exchanges, and DeFi protocols. That flexibility is one of its biggest strengths, but it also comes with a custodian behind it.

According to @BabylonLabs_io's Aave proposal, vaultBTC follows a very different design.

Instead of maximizing transferability, vaultBTC is transfer-restricted. It can only move between three predefined destinations:

• Aave V4 Hub
• Core Lending Spoke
• Integration Adapter Contract

Nowhere else.

The proposal explains why.

Those restrictions are what allow the system to avoid introducing a trusted custodian. Instead of trusting a third party, the protocol limits where the asset is allowed to move.

It's a different trade-off.

WBTC prioritizes mobility.
vaultBTC prioritizes trust minimization.

Neither design is inherently "better." They solve different problems.

One question stayed with me:

If removing the custodian requires restricting transferability, where should Bitcoin's freedom really be measured—by who controls it, or by where it's allowed to move?

@BabylonLabs_io

#baby $BABY #Bitcoin #defi

Je lisais aujourd’hui la proposition d’intégration d’Aave pour Babylon, en m’attendant à ce que le BTC natif gère l’ensemble du processus d’emprunt et de liquidation.

Puis un détail a complètement changé la façon dont je la percevais.

D’après la proposition, lorsqu’une position est liquidée, des liquidateurs sans permission reçoivent du WBTC, tandis que le BTC sous-jacent est racheté plus tard sur le réseau Bitcoin, après le règlement.

Ensuite, j’ai remarqué un autre point intéressant.

La même proposition indique que ce flux de liquidation devrait également accroître la demande d’emprunt pour le marché WBTC d’Aave, qui détient déjà environ 5 Md$ de liquidité fournie, mais qui reste sous-utilisé du côté de l’emprunt.

Cela crée une séparation intéressante.

• Le BTC natif est utilisé comme collatéral.
• Le WBTC est utilisé pendant la liquidation.
• Le règlement en BTC a lieu ensuite.

Ainsi, même si l’emprunt commence avec le Bitcoin natif, le chemin de liquidation repose encore sur le WBTC pour fournir une liquidité immédiate.

C’est un choix de conception intéressant qui équilibre le modèle de règlement de Bitcoin avec le besoin d’exécution instantanée de la DeFi.

La question n’est pas de savoir si le WBTC intervient.

C’est où commence l’« emprunt adossé au Bitcoin natif » — et où cela dépend encore du Bitcoin tokenisé.

@BabylonLabs_io

#baby $BABY