I was looking at Dusk's Hedger documentation this morning, and what stopped me is the architectural split. Instead of asking one privacy technique to do everything, Hedger separates the jobs: homomorphic encryption keeps sensitive financial values hidden during computation, while a separate zero-knowledge proof verifies that the computation was done correctly.

That matters because Hedger sits on DuskEVM, while Zedger handles privacy for native XSC contracts. Two separate paths, both aimed at the same confidential-securities goal, running on different layers.

I counted three separate demands they're meeting at once. Holdings, amounts, and balances remain fully encrypted end to end, per Dusk's own documentation, and the system is still built for regulated auditability, fully auditable by design when compliance requires it.

It shows a clear choice to keep confidential smart contracts practical for financial applications instead of pure anonymity and what I'm still trying to confirm is how much of the XSC-specific compliance logic, forced transfer, cap tables, carries over when similar workflows run through Hedger on DuskEVM instead of Zedger natively.
That specific hand-off is what I'll be watching for next.

@Dusk_Foundation #dusk $DUSK