#dusk $DUSK @Dusk I Was digging through Dusk's Citadel paper last night, half looking for something else, and got stuck on one line longer than I meant to. What a KYC credential actually is on this thing, structurally. Not the marketing version, the actual object.
It's an NFT. Same standard behind every profile-picture collectible you've seen someone flex. That's what's carrying your compliance license underneath.
Took a minute to get why that isn't insane. Everywhere else, an NFT's whole value is being seen, that's the point, you want people to know you hold it. Citadel flips that on purpose. The NFT's value field is a stealth address, nothing tied to a real identity. And when you actually use the license, you never show the NFT at all, you prove ownership with a zero-knowledge proof, then a private session cookie handles you next time so you're not redoing that proof over and over. No gallery. No trail. The one thing that makes an NFT an NFT anywhere else, that anyone can see who holds it, is exactly what's missing here.
Sat back and realized KYC and "prove you own a collectible" aren't different problems once you're under the hood. Both just need proof of a credential without someone live-vouching for you. NFTs already cracked the ownership-proof part years ago. Citadel just cut the show-it-off part, because for a license that was never the point, it was the liability.
Should say plainly what I checked versus what I didn't. I confirmed the architecture as Dusk describes it, the NFT, the stealth address, the session-cookie flow. What I couldn't check is whether that holds up once real volume runs through it. Whether enough transactions over time gives a determined observer something to piece together even without seeing the license itself. Couldn't find anything addressing that, so I won't pretend I know.
Still chewing on whether that gap matters to someone clicking through onboarding once, or if it only becomes real years from now, for whoever's stress-testing this cryptography once there's enough volume to test it against.
@Dusk
It's an NFT. Same standard behind every profile-picture collectible you've seen someone flex. That's what's carrying your compliance license underneath.
Took a minute to get why that isn't insane. Everywhere else, an NFT's whole value is being seen, that's the point, you want people to know you hold it. Citadel flips that on purpose. The NFT's value field is a stealth address, nothing tied to a real identity. And when you actually use the license, you never show the NFT at all, you prove ownership with a zero-knowledge proof, then a private session cookie handles you next time so you're not redoing that proof over and over. No gallery. No trail. The one thing that makes an NFT an NFT anywhere else, that anyone can see who holds it, is exactly what's missing here.
Sat back and realized KYC and "prove you own a collectible" aren't different problems once you're under the hood. Both just need proof of a credential without someone live-vouching for you. NFTs already cracked the ownership-proof part years ago. Citadel just cut the show-it-off part, because for a license that was never the point, it was the liability.
Should say plainly what I checked versus what I didn't. I confirmed the architecture as Dusk describes it, the NFT, the stealth address, the session-cookie flow. What I couldn't check is whether that holds up once real volume runs through it. Whether enough transactions over time gives a determined observer something to piece together even without seeing the license itself. Couldn't find anything addressing that, so I won't pretend I know.
Still chewing on whether that gap matters to someone clicking through onboarding once, or if it only becomes real years from now, for whoever's stress-testing this cryptography once there's enough volume to test it against.
@Dusk
