#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Yesterday, I delved into Dusk’s technical documentation, trying to understand how they plan to combine “pure” crypto privacy with the stringent requirements of regulators. Using custom ZK proofs (Piecrust VM) to conceal balances while maintaining KYC is an engineering‑strong move. High‑quality infrastructure should reduce compliance friction, and this looks like a workable scheme.
But this immediately raises the question of whether this is an excessive choice for the business. Dusk offers parallel scenarios: complete on‑chain transaction confidentiality while preserving view keys for auditors. Doesn’t this shift too many risks onto users? Where is the real compromise embedded? If a regulator demands the cancellation of a transaction, who holds the “red button” of control?
So far, regulated institutions — the ones that this L1 has been built for over the years — are in no hurry to allocate and retain capital here. Either this timeline is too drawn‑out, or Dusk is solving a problem that the business hasn’t actually asked for. I’m watching to see whether they’ll be able to bring the network to life with real contracts, or whether the project will remain a technically strong but empty facade.
$AKE


$ACE