Beyond Horizon
1.9k 投稿
Beyond Horizon
報告
ユーザーをブロック
Crypto Enthusiastic 📊 Content Creator!
BNBホルダー
超高頻度トレーダー
2.1年
808 フォロー
605 フォロワー
1.0K+ いいね
投稿
すべて
引用
82
41
111
95
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation さて、しばらく@Duskの取り組みを追ってきたんだけど、いつもある一つのことに考えが戻ってくる。
暗号資産業界では誰もが「機関投資家の採用」について、まるで魔法のスイッチみたいに語っている。機関投資家がある日突然現れて、パブリックチェーンを使い始める、と。でも、そんなことにはならない。理由は驚くほど単純だ。
パブリックチェーンでは、あらゆる情報が公開される。すべてのウォレット残高、すべての送金、すべてのポジション。企業がイーサリアム上で資金を移動すれば、競合他社はその動きを正確に把握できる。企業の財務戦略のすべてが、誰でも見られる状態でさらされてしまう。
これはプライバシーの問題じゃない。ビジネス上のリスクだ。
それなのに、暗号資産業界の大半の人は、透明性こそが強みだと思っている。「オンチェーンにあるものはすべて見える」。そう、その点が問題なんだ。
Duskは違うアプローチを取っている。必要なところにはプライバシーを。規制当局や監査人が確認する必要がある場合には、選択的に情報を開示する。すべてを隠すのではなく、かといって何もかもを公開するわけでもない。
あまりにも明白な中間案なのに、きちんと実現するまでにこれほど時間がかかったのが不思議なくらいだ。
従来の金融は機密性を基盤としている。昔からずっとそうだ。機関投資家が完全に透明なパブリックチェーンに移行するという考えは、そもそも現実的ではなかった。
どう思う？ 機関投資家の採用を阻んでいる本当の要因はプライバシーなのか、それとも課題の一部にすぎないのか？
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk さて、しばらく@Duskの取り組みを追ってきたんだけど、いつもある一つのことに考えが戻ってくる。
暗号資産業界では誰もが「機関投資家の採用」について、まるで魔法のスイッチみたいに語っている。機関投資家がある日突然現れて、パブリックチェーンを使い始める、と。でも、そんなことにはならない。理由は驚くほど単純だ。
パブリックチェーンでは、あらゆる情報が公開される。すべてのウォレット残高、すべての送金、すべてのポジション。企業がイーサリアム上で資金を移動すれば、競合他社はその動きを正確に把握できる。企業の財務戦略のすべてが、誰でも見られる状態でさらされてしまう。
これはプライバシーの問題じゃない。ビジネス上のリスクだ。
それなのに、暗号資産業界の大半の人は、透明性こそが強みだと思っている。「オンチェーンにあるものはすべて見える」。そう、その点が問題なんだ。
Duskは違うアプローチを取っている。必要なところにはプライバシーを。規制当局や監査人が確認する必要がある場合には、選択的に情報を開示する。すべてを隠すのではなく、かといって何もかもを公開するわけでもない。
あまりにも明白な中間案なのに、きちんと実現するまでにこれほど時間がかかったのが不思議なくらいだ。
従来の金融は機密性を基盤としている。昔からずっとそうだ。機関投資家が完全に透明なパブリックチェーンに移行するという考えは、そもそも現実的ではなかった。
どう思う？ 機関投資家の採用を阻んでいる本当の要因はプライバシーなのか、それとも課題の一部にすぎないのか？
暗号資産業界では誰もが「機関投資家の採用」について、まるで魔法のスイッチみたいに語っている。機関投資家がある日突然現れて、パブリックチェーンを使い始める、と。でも、そんなことにはならない。理由は驚くほど単純だ。
パブリックチェーンでは、あらゆる情報が公開される。すべてのウォレット残高、すべての送金、すべてのポジション。企業がイーサリアム上で資金を移動すれば、競合他社はその動きを正確に把握できる。企業の財務戦略のすべてが、誰でも見られる状態でさらされてしまう。
これはプライバシーの問題じゃない。ビジネス上のリスクだ。
それなのに、暗号資産業界の大半の人は、透明性こそが強みだと思っている。「オンチェーンにあるものはすべて見える」。そう、その点が問題なんだ。
Duskは違うアプローチを取っている。必要なところにはプライバシーを。規制当局や監査人が確認する必要がある場合には、選択的に情報を開示する。すべてを隠すのではなく、かといって何もかもを公開するわけでもない。
あまりにも明白な中間案なのに、きちんと実現するまでにこれほど時間がかかったのが不思議なくらいだ。
従来の金融は機密性を基盤としている。昔からずっとそうだ。機関投資家が完全に透明なパブリックチェーンに移行するという考えは、そもそも現実的ではなかった。
どう思う？ 機関投資家の採用を阻んでいる本当の要因はプライバシーなのか、それとも課題の一部にすぎないのか？
1
1
96
翻訳参照
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation Something's been nagging me about Dusk and I finally figured out what it is.
Most crypto projects try to get institutions to come to them. "Please list your assets on our chain." Over and over. And institutions mostly say no because the chain isn't built for their needs.
Dusk flipped it. Instead of begging for shelf space, they went and partnered with the actual infrastructure institutions already use. NPEX. A real Dutch stock exchange. Regulated by the AFM. Licensed as an MTF.
That's not "hey please use our chain." That's "let's build the exchange infrastructure together on our chain."
And now NPEX is bringing 300M EUR in assets onchain through Dusk. Not tokenized representations. Actual regulated securities.
I don't know why this framing took me so long to see. Other RWA projects are tenants trying to get listed. Dusk is building the building.
That's a completely different game.
Does working with existing regulated institutions make onchain adoption faster than trying to build new venues from scratch?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Something's been nagging me about Dusk and I finally figured out what it is.
Most crypto projects try to get institutions to come to them. "Please list your assets on our chain." Over and over. And institutions mostly say no because the chain isn't built for their needs.
Dusk flipped it. Instead of begging for shelf space, they went and partnered with the actual infrastructure institutions already use. NPEX. A real Dutch stock exchange. Regulated by the AFM. Licensed as an MTF.
That's not "hey please use our chain." That's "let's build the exchange infrastructure together on our chain."
And now NPEX is bringing 300M EUR in assets onchain through Dusk. Not tokenized representations. Actual regulated securities.
I don't know why this framing took me so long to see. Other RWA projects are tenants trying to get listed. Dusk is building the building.
That's a completely different game.
Does working with existing regulated institutions make onchain adoption faster than trying to build new venues from scratch?
Most crypto projects try to get institutions to come to them. "Please list your assets on our chain." Over and over. And institutions mostly say no because the chain isn't built for their needs.
Dusk flipped it. Instead of begging for shelf space, they went and partnered with the actual infrastructure institutions already use. NPEX. A real Dutch stock exchange. Regulated by the AFM. Licensed as an MTF.
That's not "hey please use our chain." That's "let's build the exchange infrastructure together on our chain."
And now NPEX is bringing 300M EUR in assets onchain through Dusk. Not tokenized representations. Actual regulated securities.
I don't know why this framing took me so long to see. Other RWA projects are tenants trying to get listed. Dusk is building the building.
That's a completely different game.
Does working with existing regulated institutions make onchain adoption faster than trying to build new venues from scratch?
2
3
107
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation 正直に言うと、Dusk NPEXの件を調べ始めるまで、DLT-TSSライセンスが何なのか知りませんでした。今では、そのことが頭から離れません。
簡単に言えば、従来の金融では、取引と決済は別々に行われます。プラットフォームが取引をマッチングし、中央証券保管機関が決済する。別々の組織で、別々のシステムです。連携にも多くの手間がかかります。
DLT-TSSライセンスがあれば、その両方を一つにまとめられます。同じブロックチェーン上で、取引と決済を同時に行うのです。アトミックに、リアルタイムで。決済に何日も待つ必要はありません。仲介業者が記録をあちこちに回すこともありません。
21Xはすでにこのライセンスを取得しています。ヨーロッパで初です。そして、対応チェーンの一つとしてDuskEVMを統合する計画です。
私が特に驚いたのはそこです。認可を受けたヨーロッパの取引所が、パブリックなパーミッションレス・ブロックチェーン上で取引を行い、リアルタイムで決済する。プライベートチェーンではなく、閉ざされた環境でもなく、パブリックなインフラ上でです。
これによって実際に何が可能になるのか、まだ考えを整理しているところです。決済がアトミックでオンチェーンなら、清算機関はまだ必要なのでしょうか？取引が適切に決済されるようにするためだけに存在する、中間層はすべて必要なのでしょうか？
答えはわかりません。でも、認可を受けた組織がプライベートネットワークではなく、パブリックなレールの上で構築しているという事実は、多くの人が思っている以上に大きな意味がある気がします。
オンチェーンでの即時決済は、従来のインフラを本当に置き換えるのでしょうか？それとも、単に場所を移すだけなのでしょうか？
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk 正直に言うと、Dusk NPEXの件を調べ始めるまで、DLT-TSSライセンスが何なのか知りませんでした。今では、そのことが頭から離れません。
簡単に言えば、従来の金融では、取引と決済は別々に行われます。プラットフォームが取引をマッチングし、中央証券保管機関が決済する。別々の組織で、別々のシステムです。連携にも多くの手間がかかります。
DLT-TSSライセンスがあれば、その両方を一つにまとめられます。同じブロックチェーン上で、取引と決済を同時に行うのです。アトミックに、リアルタイムで。決済に何日も待つ必要はありません。仲介業者が記録をあちこちに回すこともありません。
21Xはすでにこのライセンスを取得しています。ヨーロッパで初です。そして、対応チェーンの一つとしてDuskEVMを統合する計画です。
私が特に驚いたのはそこです。認可を受けたヨーロッパの取引所が、パブリックなパーミッションレス・ブロックチェーン上で取引を行い、リアルタイムで決済する。プライベートチェーンではなく、閉ざされた環境でもなく、パブリックなインフラ上でです。
これによって実際に何が可能になるのか、まだ考えを整理しているところです。決済がアトミックでオンチェーンなら、清算機関はまだ必要なのでしょうか？取引が適切に決済されるようにするためだけに存在する、中間層はすべて必要なのでしょうか？
答えはわかりません。でも、認可を受けた組織がプライベートネットワークではなく、パブリックなレールの上で構築しているという事実は、多くの人が思っている以上に大きな意味がある気がします。
オンチェーンでの即時決済は、従来のインフラを本当に置き換えるのでしょうか？それとも、単に場所を移すだけなのでしょうか？
簡単に言えば、従来の金融では、取引と決済は別々に行われます。プラットフォームが取引をマッチングし、中央証券保管機関が決済する。別々の組織で、別々のシステムです。連携にも多くの手間がかかります。
DLT-TSSライセンスがあれば、その両方を一つにまとめられます。同じブロックチェーン上で、取引と決済を同時に行うのです。アトミックに、リアルタイムで。決済に何日も待つ必要はありません。仲介業者が記録をあちこちに回すこともありません。
21Xはすでにこのライセンスを取得しています。ヨーロッパで初です。そして、対応チェーンの一つとしてDuskEVMを統合する計画です。
私が特に驚いたのはそこです。認可を受けたヨーロッパの取引所が、パブリックなパーミッションレス・ブロックチェーン上で取引を行い、リアルタイムで決済する。プライベートチェーンではなく、閉ざされた環境でもなく、パブリックなインフラ上でです。
これによって実際に何が可能になるのか、まだ考えを整理しているところです。決済がアトミックでオンチェーンなら、清算機関はまだ必要なのでしょうか？取引が適切に決済されるようにするためだけに存在する、中間層はすべて必要なのでしょうか？
答えはわかりません。でも、認可を受けた組織がプライベートネットワークではなく、パブリックなレールの上で構築しているという事実は、多くの人が思っている以上に大きな意味がある気がします。
オンチェーンでの即時決済は、従来のインフラを本当に置き換えるのでしょうか？それとも、単に場所を移すだけなのでしょうか？
4
2
87
翻訳参照
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation So I keep seeing people talk about Dusk like it's just another privacy chain. And I mean, I get it. The word "private" is right there in the pitch.
But I've been scrolling through their docs and it's not really about hiding everything. It's about choosing what gets seen and what doesn't.
Like they have this thing where transactions can be transparent or confidential depending on what you need. Not two different chains. Same chain, two modes.
That's weird, right? Normally it's either "everything public" like Ethereum or "everything private" like Monero. Dusk is doing both. And the more I think about it, the more that makes sense for actual finance.
A company paying a supplier wants that public. It's on the books. Auditable.
A fund moving money between its own accounts doesn't want the whole world watching. Competitors would see. Investors would panic.
Same chain. Same wallet. Just different visibility.
I don't know why more chains don't do this. Probably because it's harder to build. But for real financial stuff, you kind of need both options.
Would you use a chain that gives you both, or do you prefer one clear mode?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk So I keep seeing people talk about Dusk like it's just another privacy chain. And I mean, I get it. The word "private" is right there in the pitch.
But I've been scrolling through their docs and it's not really about hiding everything. It's about choosing what gets seen and what doesn't.
Like they have this thing where transactions can be transparent or confidential depending on what you need. Not two different chains. Same chain, two modes.
That's weird, right? Normally it's either "everything public" like Ethereum or "everything private" like Monero. Dusk is doing both. And the more I think about it, the more that makes sense for actual finance.
A company paying a supplier wants that public. It's on the books. Auditable.
A fund moving money between its own accounts doesn't want the whole world watching. Competitors would see. Investors would panic.
Same chain. Same wallet. Just different visibility.
I don't know why more chains don't do this. Probably because it's harder to build. But for real financial stuff, you kind of need both options.
Would you use a chain that gives you both, or do you prefer one clear mode?
But I've been scrolling through their docs and it's not really about hiding everything. It's about choosing what gets seen and what doesn't.
Like they have this thing where transactions can be transparent or confidential depending on what you need. Not two different chains. Same chain, two modes.
That's weird, right? Normally it's either "everything public" like Ethereum or "everything private" like Monero. Dusk is doing both. And the more I think about it, the more that makes sense for actual finance.
A company paying a supplier wants that public. It's on the books. Auditable.
A fund moving money between its own accounts doesn't want the whole world watching. Competitors would see. Investors would panic.
Same chain. Same wallet. Just different visibility.
I don't know why more chains don't do this. Probably because it's harder to build. But for real financial stuff, you kind of need both options.
Would you use a chain that gives you both, or do you prefer one clear mode?
4
3
79
翻訳参照
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation
Honestly I didn't expect to spend my evening reading about token standards on Dusk. But here we are.
I was going through their docs and the whole tokenization vs native issuance thing kept bugging me. Like at first glance they sound the same. Put an asset onchain. Done. Right?
Wrong.
Tokenization is just a wrapper. The real asset still sits somewhere offchain. Custodian holds it. Token tracks it. If the custodian messes up, your token is basically a receipt for a problem.
Native issuance is completely different. The asset is born onchain. The record lives onchain. Issuance, transfers, settlement, everything. No second system running in the background needing reconciliation.
It hit me when I thought about a bond. A tokenized bond still has a custodian, still has offchain settlement, still has two records that need to match. A natively issued bond on Dusk just... exists onchain. One record. One source of truth.
I'm not saying I fully get all the legal stuff. I don't. But the technical difference makes sense. One adds a layer. The other removes it.
That's the part I keep coming back to.
Would you rather hold a token that represents an asset, or the asset itself living onchain?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Honestly I didn't expect to spend my evening reading about token standards on Dusk. But here we are.
I was going through their docs and the whole tokenization vs native issuance thing kept bugging me. Like at first glance they sound the same. Put an asset onchain. Done. Right?
Wrong.
Tokenization is just a wrapper. The real asset still sits somewhere offchain. Custodian holds it. Token tracks it. If the custodian messes up, your token is basically a receipt for a problem.
Native issuance is completely different. The asset is born onchain. The record lives onchain. Issuance, transfers, settlement, everything. No second system running in the background needing reconciliation.
It hit me when I thought about a bond. A tokenized bond still has a custodian, still has offchain settlement, still has two records that need to match. A natively issued bond on Dusk just... exists onchain. One record. One source of truth.
I'm not saying I fully get all the legal stuff. I don't. But the technical difference makes sense. One adds a layer. The other removes it.
That's the part I keep coming back to.
Would you rather hold a token that represents an asset, or the asset itself living onchain?
Honestly I didn't expect to spend my evening reading about token standards on Dusk. But here we are.
I was going through their docs and the whole tokenization vs native issuance thing kept bugging me. Like at first glance they sound the same. Put an asset onchain. Done. Right?
Wrong.
Tokenization is just a wrapper. The real asset still sits somewhere offchain. Custodian holds it. Token tracks it. If the custodian messes up, your token is basically a receipt for a problem.
Native issuance is completely different. The asset is born onchain. The record lives onchain. Issuance, transfers, settlement, everything. No second system running in the background needing reconciliation.
It hit me when I thought about a bond. A tokenized bond still has a custodian, still has offchain settlement, still has two records that need to match. A natively issued bond on Dusk just... exists onchain. One record. One source of truth.
I'm not saying I fully get all the legal stuff. I don't. But the technical difference makes sense. One adds a layer. The other removes it.
That's the part I keep coming back to.
Would you rather hold a token that represents an asset, or the asset itself living onchain?
4
5
126
翻訳参照
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation Okay so I've been messing around with Dusk docs for a few days now and something finally hit me.
I used to think "custody" meant one thing. Like a wallet. You hold the keys or someone else does. Done.
Then I saw how NPEX set theirs up and honestly I had to re-read it twice.
They're not using some SaaS custody provider. They're running Cordial Treasury themselves. On-premises. Their own servers. Their own control. Because they're a regulated exchange and they can't just hand their tech stack to a third party and pray nothing breaks.
And that's the part I kept thinking about. I've used centralised exchanges before where the platform holds everything. If they freeze, you're done. But NPEX isn't just trusting someone else. They're running the custody layer themselves on top of Dusk Vault.
I don't know why that surprised me so much. Maybe because we're so used to crypto custody being "send it to a platform and hope." This is the opposite. It's "run it yourself and stay in control."
Still not sure if self-hosted is better for everyone. More control, yeah. But more responsibility too. If something goes wrong, there's no one else to blame.
That's the tradeoff I can't stop thinking about.
Would you rather have someone else manage custody, or would you want full control even if it means full responsibility?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk Okay so I've been messing around with Dusk docs for a few days now and something finally hit me.
I used to think "custody" meant one thing. Like a wallet. You hold the keys or someone else does. Done.
Then I saw how NPEX set theirs up and honestly I had to re-read it twice.
They're not using some SaaS custody provider. They're running Cordial Treasury themselves. On-premises. Their own servers. Their own control. Because they're a regulated exchange and they can't just hand their tech stack to a third party and pray nothing breaks.
And that's the part I kept thinking about. I've used centralised exchanges before where the platform holds everything. If they freeze, you're done. But NPEX isn't just trusting someone else. They're running the custody layer themselves on top of Dusk Vault.
I don't know why that surprised me so much. Maybe because we're so used to crypto custody being "send it to a platform and hope." This is the opposite. It's "run it yourself and stay in control."
Still not sure if self-hosted is better for everyone. More control, yeah. But more responsibility too. If something goes wrong, there's no one else to blame.
That's the tradeoff I can't stop thinking about.
Would you rather have someone else manage custody, or would you want full control even if it means full responsibility?
I used to think "custody" meant one thing. Like a wallet. You hold the keys or someone else does. Done.
Then I saw how NPEX set theirs up and honestly I had to re-read it twice.
They're not using some SaaS custody provider. They're running Cordial Treasury themselves. On-premises. Their own servers. Their own control. Because they're a regulated exchange and they can't just hand their tech stack to a third party and pray nothing breaks.
And that's the part I kept thinking about. I've used centralised exchanges before where the platform holds everything. If they freeze, you're done. But NPEX isn't just trusting someone else. They're running the custody layer themselves on top of Dusk Vault.
I don't know why that surprised me so much. Maybe because we're so used to crypto custody being "send it to a platform and hope." This is the opposite. It's "run it yourself and stay in control."
Still not sure if self-hosted is better for everyone. More control, yeah. But more responsibility too. If something goes wrong, there's no one else to blame.
That's the tradeoff I can't stop thinking about.
Would you rather have someone else manage custody, or would you want full control even if it means full responsibility?
9
6
79
翻訳参照
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation
Would you feel safer with a third-party custodian, or with institution-grade self-hosted custody like what NPEX is running?
I was reading through Dusk custody setup today. At first I thought institutional custody was just "who holds the keys." Then I looked at how Dusk and NPEX actually structured it with Cordial Systems, and the difference clicked.
For regulated institutions, custody isn't one problem. It's three problems stacked together. Who holds the asset. Who controls the technology. Who takes the risk if something fails.
Most crypto custody solutions are third-party SaaS. You send your assets to a provider's platform. They hold it. You trust their security. But regulated exchanges like NPEX can't do that. They need direct control over their technology stack. Not "trust us, we're secure." Actual operational control.
That's where Cordial Treasury comes in. It's self-hosted wallet technology. On-premises. NPEX runs it themselves, with Dusk Vault as the institution-grade custody layer underneath. The exchange isn't just integrating with Dusk — it's using Dusk's custody infrastructure as a client.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in practice. Does self-hosted custody actually reduce risk for regulated institutions? Or does it just shift the responsibility from the provider to the institution? And what happens when something goes wrong — who's accountable in a fully on-premises setup?
That's the part I haven't figured out yet. Custody in regulated finance isn't just about security. It's about accountability.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Would you feel safer with a third-party custodian, or with institution-grade self-hosted custody like what NPEX is running?
I was reading through Dusk custody setup today. At first I thought institutional custody was just "who holds the keys." Then I looked at how Dusk and NPEX actually structured it with Cordial Systems, and the difference clicked.
For regulated institutions, custody isn't one problem. It's three problems stacked together. Who holds the asset. Who controls the technology. Who takes the risk if something fails.
Most crypto custody solutions are third-party SaaS. You send your assets to a provider's platform. They hold it. You trust their security. But regulated exchanges like NPEX can't do that. They need direct control over their technology stack. Not "trust us, we're secure." Actual operational control.
That's where Cordial Treasury comes in. It's self-hosted wallet technology. On-premises. NPEX runs it themselves, with Dusk Vault as the institution-grade custody layer underneath. The exchange isn't just integrating with Dusk — it's using Dusk's custody infrastructure as a client.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in practice. Does self-hosted custody actually reduce risk for regulated institutions? Or does it just shift the responsibility from the provider to the institution? And what happens when something goes wrong — who's accountable in a fully on-premises setup?
That's the part I haven't figured out yet. Custody in regulated finance isn't just about security. It's about accountability.
Would you feel safer with a third-party custodian, or with institution-grade self-hosted custody like what NPEX is running?
I was reading through Dusk custody setup today. At first I thought institutional custody was just "who holds the keys." Then I looked at how Dusk and NPEX actually structured it with Cordial Systems, and the difference clicked.
For regulated institutions, custody isn't one problem. It's three problems stacked together. Who holds the asset. Who controls the technology. Who takes the risk if something fails.
Most crypto custody solutions are third-party SaaS. You send your assets to a provider's platform. They hold it. You trust their security. But regulated exchanges like NPEX can't do that. They need direct control over their technology stack. Not "trust us, we're secure." Actual operational control.
That's where Cordial Treasury comes in. It's self-hosted wallet technology. On-premises. NPEX runs it themselves, with Dusk Vault as the institution-grade custody layer underneath. The exchange isn't just integrating with Dusk — it's using Dusk's custody infrastructure as a client.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in practice. Does self-hosted custody actually reduce risk for regulated institutions? Or does it just shift the responsibility from the provider to the institution? And what happens when something goes wrong — who's accountable in a fully on-premises setup?
That's the part I haven't figured out yet. Custody in regulated finance isn't just about security. It's about accountability.
6
5
70
·
--
ブリッシュ
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation
私は他のどのブロックチェーンでも見たことのないものを、Duskのドキュメントで見つけました。同じチェーン上で2つのトランザクション・モデルが動作しています。
公開アカウントのフローにはMoonlight。すべてが見える。記録に残る。公開されている。
機密化されたシールド転送にはPhoenix。プライベート。公開の視界から隠される。
同じネットワーク。 同じ決済レイヤー。どちらを使うかはあなた次第です。
最初は、これは単なるプライバシー機能だと思いました。けれど、規制された機関が実際にどう使うのか考え始めました。
ファンドマネージャーが、自分自身のウォレット間でポジションをリバランスする際に、そんなものが公開の場に表示されるのは望みません。競合が見てしまうからです。クライアントはパニックになります。ですが同じマネージャーは、投資家への分配を完全に透明性をもって示す必要もあります。同じチェーン、同じウォレット、2つのモード。社内の移動はPhoenix。公開記録はMoonlight。
それは“逃げ道”としてのプライバシーではありません。ツールとしてのプライバシーです。必要なところで使う。どこでも使うわけではない。
規制面については、まだ気になっています。監査人がPhoenixのトランザクションを確認する必要があるとき、どうやって行うのでしょう？選択的な開示でしょうか？詳細を公開せずにコンプライアンスを証明するゼロ知識証明でしょうか？
次に理解したいのはそこです。意図的に詳細を隠しているのに、どうやって“適合している”と証明するのか。
同じチェーンで2つのトランザクション・モードを使うのでしょうか？それとも、複雑になりすぎてしまうのでしょうか？
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
私は他のどのブロックチェーンでも見たことのないものを、Duskのドキュメントで見つけました。同じチェーン上で2つのトランザクション・モデルが動作しています。
公開アカウントのフローにはMoonlight。すべてが見える。記録に残る。公開されている。
機密化されたシールド転送にはPhoenix。プライベート。公開の視界から隠される。
同じネットワーク。 同じ決済レイヤー。どちらを使うかはあなた次第です。
最初は、これは単なるプライバシー機能だと思いました。けれど、規制された機関が実際にどう使うのか考え始めました。
ファンドマネージャーが、自分自身のウォレット間でポジションをリバランスする際に、そんなものが公開の場に表示されるのは望みません。競合が見てしまうからです。クライアントはパニックになります。ですが同じマネージャーは、投資家への分配を完全に透明性をもって示す必要もあります。同じチェーン、同じウォレット、2つのモード。社内の移動はPhoenix。公開記録はMoonlight。
それは“逃げ道”としてのプライバシーではありません。ツールとしてのプライバシーです。必要なところで使う。どこでも使うわけではない。
規制面については、まだ気になっています。監査人がPhoenixのトランザクションを確認する必要があるとき、どうやって行うのでしょう？選択的な開示でしょうか？詳細を公開せずにコンプライアンスを証明するゼロ知識証明でしょうか？
次に理解したいのはそこです。意図的に詳細を隠しているのに、どうやって“適合している”と証明するのか。
同じチェーンで2つのトランザクション・モードを使うのでしょうか？それとも、複雑になりすぎてしまうのでしょうか？
私は他のどのブロックチェーンでも見たことのないものを、Duskのドキュメントで見つけました。同じチェーン上で2つのトランザクション・モデルが動作しています。
公開アカウントのフローにはMoonlight。すべてが見える。記録に残る。公開されている。
機密化されたシールド転送にはPhoenix。プライベート。公開の視界から隠される。
同じネットワーク。 同じ決済レイヤー。どちらを使うかはあなた次第です。
最初は、これは単なるプライバシー機能だと思いました。けれど、規制された機関が実際にどう使うのか考え始めました。
ファンドマネージャーが、自分自身のウォレット間でポジションをリバランスする際に、そんなものが公開の場に表示されるのは望みません。競合が見てしまうからです。クライアントはパニックになります。ですが同じマネージャーは、投資家への分配を完全に透明性をもって示す必要もあります。同じチェーン、同じウォレット、2つのモード。社内の移動はPhoenix。公開記録はMoonlight。
それは“逃げ道”としてのプライバシーではありません。ツールとしてのプライバシーです。必要なところで使う。どこでも使うわけではない。
規制面については、まだ気になっています。監査人がPhoenixのトランザクションを確認する必要があるとき、どうやって行うのでしょう？選択的な開示でしょうか？詳細を公開せずにコンプライアンスを証明するゼロ知識証明でしょうか？
次に理解したいのはそこです。意図的に詳細を隠しているのに、どうやって“適合している”と証明するのか。
同じチェーンで2つのトランザクション・モードを使うのでしょうか？それとも、複雑になりすぎてしまうのでしょうか？
44
17
116
翻訳参照
Day 2 on TermMax and I finally tried the one thing that's been nagging at me — leverage without looping.
If you've ever done manual looping, you know the pain. Deposit collateral. Borrow against it. Swap for more collateral. Deposit again. Borrow again. Repeat. That's 4-6 transactions, gas fees stacking, constant anxiety about liquidation math.
The Gearing Token (GT) compresses all of that into ONE transaction.
I provided 1,000 USDC. The protocol flash-loaned additional funds, bought the collateral, locked everything into a GT NFT, issued debt tokens, and repaid the flash loan — all atomically. One click. Done.
The GT is an NFT that represents your entire leveraged position. Collateral on one side, debt on the other. Adjust collateral, metadata updates. Repay loan, GT burns, collateral returns. Clean.
And Smart Unwind is coming in V2 — set a target APR or price, your position auto-exits when conditions hit. No more screen-watching.
I'm not gonna pretend this is risk-free. Leverage amplifies losses too. But the UX difference is wild. What used to be a 20-minute multi-transaction headache is now literally a button click.
This is how you make DeFi accessible without dumbing it down.
#termmax @termmax
Day 2 on TermMax and I finally tried the one thing that's been nagging at me — leverage without looping.
If you've ever done manual looping, you know the pain. Deposit collateral. Borrow against it. Swap for more collateral. Deposit again. Borrow again. Repeat. That's 4-6 transactions, gas fees stacking, constant anxiety about liquidation math.
The Gearing Token (GT) compresses all of that into ONE transaction.
I provided 1,000 USDC. The protocol flash-loaned additional funds, bought the collateral, locked everything into a GT NFT, issued debt tokens, and repaid the flash loan — all atomically. One click. Done.
The GT is an NFT that represents your entire leveraged position. Collateral on one side, debt on the other. Adjust collateral, metadata updates. Repay loan, GT burns, collateral returns. Clean.
And Smart Unwind is coming in V2 — set a target APR or price, your position auto-exits when conditions hit. No more screen-watching.
I'm not gonna pretend this is risk-free. Leverage amplifies losses too. But the UX difference is wild. What used to be a 20-minute multi-transaction headache is now literally a button click.
This is how you make DeFi accessible without dumbing it down.
#termmax @TermMax
If you've ever done manual looping, you know the pain. Deposit collateral. Borrow against it. Swap for more collateral. Deposit again. Borrow again. Repeat. That's 4-6 transactions, gas fees stacking, constant anxiety about liquidation math.
The Gearing Token (GT) compresses all of that into ONE transaction.
I provided 1,000 USDC. The protocol flash-loaned additional funds, bought the collateral, locked everything into a GT NFT, issued debt tokens, and repaid the flash loan — all atomically. One click. Done.
The GT is an NFT that represents your entire leveraged position. Collateral on one side, debt on the other. Adjust collateral, metadata updates. Repay loan, GT burns, collateral returns. Clean.
And Smart Unwind is coming in V2 — set a target APR or price, your position auto-exits when conditions hit. No more screen-watching.
I'm not gonna pretend this is risk-free. Leverage amplifies losses too. But the UX difference is wild. What used to be a 20-minute multi-transaction headache is now literally a button click.
This is how you make DeFi accessible without dumbing it down.
#termmax @TermMax
16
9
110
·
--
弱気相場
$DUSK 47.5 USDT（30日間の取引）
翻訳参照
I was reading through Dusk docs today and something stopped me. Most blockchains give you one transaction model. Transparent. Everything visible. That's it.
Dusk gives you two.
Moonlight for public account flows. Phoenix for confidential shielded transfers. Same network. Same consensus. Same settlement layer. But you choose which mode fits the transaction.
That's such a simple idea, but it changes everything about how you'd build financial applications. A treasury payment that needs to be on the record? Moonlight. A position transfer between your own accounts that shouldn't broadcast your portfolio? Phoenix. Both on the same chain, not two chains pretending to be one.
What got my attention even more was the settlement piece. Succinct Attestation — Dusk's consensus protocol — is built around deterministic finality. Once a block is ratified, it's final. No user-facing reorgs. No "wait for six confirmations to be safe." For financial markets, that matters more than speed. You need to know a settlement is actually settled.
I keep thinking about how these pieces fit together. Two transaction models for privacy where needed. Deterministic finality for settlement confidence. Delivery-versus-payment built in, so asset and payment move together atomically. This isn't a general-purpose chain with finance features bolted on. It feels like finance infrastructure that happens to be a blockchain.
I'm still working through what this means in practice. Can institutions actually use both transaction models in the same workflow? Does regulatory reporting work differently for Moonlight vs Phoenix? These feel like the right questions to be asking.
Would you want two transaction modes in the same chain, or is that added complexity for most users?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation
I was reading through Dusk docs today and something stopped me. Most blockchains give you one transaction model. Transparent. Everything visible. That's it.
Dusk gives you two.
Moonlight for public account flows. Phoenix for confidential shielded transfers. Same network. Same consensus. Same settlement layer. But you choose which mode fits the transaction.
That's such a simple idea, but it changes everything about how you'd build financial applications. A treasury payment that needs to be on the record? Moonlight. A position transfer between your own accounts that shouldn't broadcast your portfolio? Phoenix. Both on the same chain, not two chains pretending to be one.
What got my attention even more was the settlement piece. Succinct Attestation — Dusk's consensus protocol — is built around deterministic finality. Once a block is ratified, it's final. No user-facing reorgs. No "wait for six confirmations to be safe." For financial markets, that matters more than speed. You need to know a settlement is actually settled.
I keep thinking about how these pieces fit together. Two transaction models for privacy where needed. Deterministic finality for settlement confidence. Delivery-versus-payment built in, so asset and payment move together atomically. This isn't a general-purpose chain with finance features bolted on. It feels like finance infrastructure that happens to be a blockchain.
I'm still working through what this means in practice. Can institutions actually use both transaction models in the same workflow? Does regulatory reporting work differently for Moonlight vs Phoenix? These feel like the right questions to be asking.
Would you want two transaction modes in the same chain, or is that added complexity for most users?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Dusk gives you two.
Moonlight for public account flows. Phoenix for confidential shielded transfers. Same network. Same consensus. Same settlement layer. But you choose which mode fits the transaction.
That's such a simple idea, but it changes everything about how you'd build financial applications. A treasury payment that needs to be on the record? Moonlight. A position transfer between your own accounts that shouldn't broadcast your portfolio? Phoenix. Both on the same chain, not two chains pretending to be one.
What got my attention even more was the settlement piece. Succinct Attestation — Dusk's consensus protocol — is built around deterministic finality. Once a block is ratified, it's final. No user-facing reorgs. No "wait for six confirmations to be safe." For financial markets, that matters more than speed. You need to know a settlement is actually settled.
I keep thinking about how these pieces fit together. Two transaction models for privacy where needed. Deterministic finality for settlement confidence. Delivery-versus-payment built in, so asset and payment move together atomically. This isn't a general-purpose chain with finance features bolted on. It feels like finance infrastructure that happens to be a blockchain.
I'm still working through what this means in practice. Can institutions actually use both transaction models in the same workflow? Does regulatory reporting work differently for Moonlight vs Phoenix? These feel like the right questions to be asking.
Would you want two transaction modes in the same chain, or is that added complexity for most users?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
19
8
119
·
--
ブリッシュ
翻訳参照
I was looking at Dusk comparison between tokenization and native issuance today. At first, I thought they were basically the same thing. Put an asset onchain. What's the difference?
Then the comparison clicked for me.
Tokenization wraps an existing asset. A bond. An ETF. A real estate fund. You take something that already exists offchain, create a token that represents it, and trade that token. But here's the thing the actual asset still lives in the old system. Custody. Clearing. Settlement. All the legacy plumbing still runs underneath.
Native issuance is different. The asset is born onchain. Not a token pointing to something offchain. The actual record issuance, ownership, transfers, settlement, servicing, reporting lives on Dusk from day one.
That's not a small distinction. It's the difference between putting a digital wrapper around an old process and rebuilding the process itself.
What stopped me was thinking about how this plays out in real regulated markets. If an EU-licensed institution issues a bond natively on Dusk, the entire lifecycle stays connected. No separate custody ledger. No reconciliation between systems. No "we'll sync the records at end of day." The asset moves, settles, and reports all in the same place.
I'm still wondering how much this actually matters once real volume arrives. Keeping the whole lifecycle onchain sounds cleaner, but does it actually simplify things in practice? Or does it just move the complexity somewhere else?
That's the question I keep coming back to. Is native issuance enough on its own, or do the institutions need to change too?
Would you trust an asset that's fully native onchain, or do you feel safer with tokenization wrapping something that already exists?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk_Foundation
I was looking at Dusk comparison between tokenization and native issuance today. At first, I thought they were basically the same thing. Put an asset onchain. What's the difference?
Then the comparison clicked for me.
Tokenization wraps an existing asset. A bond. An ETF. A real estate fund. You take something that already exists offchain, create a token that represents it, and trade that token. But here's the thing the actual asset still lives in the old system. Custody. Clearing. Settlement. All the legacy plumbing still runs underneath.
Native issuance is different. The asset is born onchain. Not a token pointing to something offchain. The actual record issuance, ownership, transfers, settlement, servicing, reporting lives on Dusk from day one.
That's not a small distinction. It's the difference between putting a digital wrapper around an old process and rebuilding the process itself.
What stopped me was thinking about how this plays out in real regulated markets. If an EU-licensed institution issues a bond natively on Dusk, the entire lifecycle stays connected. No separate custody ledger. No reconciliation between systems. No "we'll sync the records at end of day." The asset moves, settles, and reports all in the same place.
I'm still wondering how much this actually matters once real volume arrives. Keeping the whole lifecycle onchain sounds cleaner, but does it actually simplify things in practice? Or does it just move the complexity somewhere else?
That's the question I keep coming back to. Is native issuance enough on its own, or do the institutions need to change too?
Would you trust an asset that's fully native onchain, or do you feel safer with tokenization wrapping something that already exists?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Then the comparison clicked for me.
Tokenization wraps an existing asset. A bond. An ETF. A real estate fund. You take something that already exists offchain, create a token that represents it, and trade that token. But here's the thing the actual asset still lives in the old system. Custody. Clearing. Settlement. All the legacy plumbing still runs underneath.
Native issuance is different. The asset is born onchain. Not a token pointing to something offchain. The actual record issuance, ownership, transfers, settlement, servicing, reporting lives on Dusk from day one.
That's not a small distinction. It's the difference between putting a digital wrapper around an old process and rebuilding the process itself.
What stopped me was thinking about how this plays out in real regulated markets. If an EU-licensed institution issues a bond natively on Dusk, the entire lifecycle stays connected. No separate custody ledger. No reconciliation between systems. No "we'll sync the records at end of day." The asset moves, settles, and reports all in the same place.
I'm still wondering how much this actually matters once real volume arrives. Keeping the whole lifecycle onchain sounds cleaner, but does it actually simplify things in practice? Or does it just move the complexity somewhere else?
That's the question I keep coming back to. Is native issuance enough on its own, or do the institutions need to change too?
Would you trust an asset that's fully native onchain, or do you feel safer with tokenization wrapping something that already exists?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
12
10
279
·
--
ブリッシュ
翻訳参照
I was reading through @Dusk_Foundation docs today and something stopped me. Most blockchains treat addresses as one thing. You have an address. Everything you do is visible on it. That's the model.
Dusk doesn't work that way.
One seed. Multiple profiles. Each profile can have both a public address and a shielded address. Same wallet. Same identity. But you choose which side of it you use depending on the transaction.
Let that sink in for a second.
Want to send a payment to a supplier? Use the public address. It's visible. It's auditable. It's on the record.
Want to move funds between your own accounts without broadcasting your positions? Shielded address. Private. Still verifiable through ZK proofs if an authorized party needs to review it.
I kept thinking about how this works in practice. A fund manager could run their entire operation from one seed — public addresses for regulatory reporting, shielded addresses for sensitive positions. Not two different systems. Not two different tools. The same profile, the same wallet, the same identity. Just different levels of visibility depending on what's appropriate.
That's not privacy as an all-or-nothing choice. It's privacy as a dimension. And that's different from almost every other blockchain I've used.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in real regulated markets. Will institutions use both sides? Will some things stay fully public while others go fully shielded? Or will most activity land somewhere in between?
What would you choose — one address for everything, or the option to go public or private depending on the transaction?
#dusk $DUSK
I was reading through @Dusk docs today and something stopped me. Most blockchains treat addresses as one thing. You have an address. Everything you do is visible on it. That's the model.
Dusk doesn't work that way.
One seed. Multiple profiles. Each profile can have both a public address and a shielded address. Same wallet. Same identity. But you choose which side of it you use depending on the transaction.
Let that sink in for a second.
Want to send a payment to a supplier? Use the public address. It's visible. It's auditable. It's on the record.
Want to move funds between your own accounts without broadcasting your positions? Shielded address. Private. Still verifiable through ZK proofs if an authorized party needs to review it.
I kept thinking about how this works in practice. A fund manager could run their entire operation from one seed — public addresses for regulatory reporting, shielded addresses for sensitive positions. Not two different systems. Not two different tools. The same profile, the same wallet, the same identity. Just different levels of visibility depending on what's appropriate.
That's not privacy as an all-or-nothing choice. It's privacy as a dimension. And that's different from almost every other blockchain I've used.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in real regulated markets. Will institutions use both sides? Will some things stay fully public while others go fully shielded? Or will most activity land somewhere in between?
What would you choose — one address for everything, or the option to go public or private depending on the transaction?
#dusk $DUSK
Dusk doesn't work that way.
One seed. Multiple profiles. Each profile can have both a public address and a shielded address. Same wallet. Same identity. But you choose which side of it you use depending on the transaction.
Let that sink in for a second.
Want to send a payment to a supplier? Use the public address. It's visible. It's auditable. It's on the record.
Want to move funds between your own accounts without broadcasting your positions? Shielded address. Private. Still verifiable through ZK proofs if an authorized party needs to review it.
I kept thinking about how this works in practice. A fund manager could run their entire operation from one seed — public addresses for regulatory reporting, shielded addresses for sensitive positions. Not two different systems. Not two different tools. The same profile, the same wallet, the same identity. Just different levels of visibility depending on what's appropriate.
That's not privacy as an all-or-nothing choice. It's privacy as a dimension. And that's different from almost every other blockchain I've used.
I'm still wondering how this plays out in real regulated markets. Will institutions use both sides? Will some things stay fully public while others go fully shielded? Or will most activity land somewhere in between?
What would you choose — one address for everything, or the option to go public or private depending on the transaction?
#dusk $DUSK
2
5
91
·
--
弱気相場
翻訳参照
I've been thinking about how traditional brokers work. You open an account. You buy an ETF or a money market fund. They hold it for you. Settlement takes days.
Now compare that to what @Dusk_Foundation is building with Dusk Trade.
Dusk Trade is a neobroker for tokenized financial assets on DuskEVM. The pitch isn't "crypto trading." It's bringing the assets traditional investors already know — MMFs, ETFs, bonds, real-world assets — onto Dusk's infrastructure.
Here's what changes when those assets move onchain.
Ownership
Traditional brokerage: the broker holds your assets in "street name." You have a claim. They have the asset. Dusk Trade: real ownership onchain. The asset is yours. Settled instantly. No "we'll process your request in 2-3 business days."
Settlement
Traditional: T+2. Sometimes longer. Funds settle days after you trade. Dusk: deterministic settlement. The trade is final when it happens. Not when a back office catches up.
Composability
Traditional: your MMF sits in your brokerage account. You can't use it as collateral elsewhere. You can't plug it into DeFi protocols. Dusk Trade: tokenized assets are composable. They work with the rest of the onchain financial system.
Here's what I find interesting. Dusk Trade isn't trying to replace traditional finance. It's structured to operate as a regulated MTF and investment platform, compliant with applicable EU regulations. That's not "move fast and break things." That's "build it properly so institutions can actually use it."
The neobroker model isn't a crypto exchange pretending to be a broker. It's financial market infrastructure built for tokenized assets from the ground up.
Traditional finance works. It's just slow, opaque, and siloed. Dusk Trade's bet is that tokenized assets with real ownership, instant settlement, and DeFi-grade composability can do the same things better.
The question isn't whether tokenized finance wins. It's whether regulated infrastructure gets there first, or unregulated DeFi does. Dusk is betting on the regulated path.
#dusk $DUSK
I've been thinking about how traditional brokers work. You open an account. You buy an ETF or a money market fund. They hold it for you. Settlement takes days.
Now compare that to what @Dusk is building with Dusk Trade.
Dusk Trade is a neobroker for tokenized financial assets on DuskEVM. The pitch isn't "crypto trading." It's bringing the assets traditional investors already know — MMFs, ETFs, bonds, real-world assets — onto Dusk's infrastructure.
Here's what changes when those assets move onchain.
Ownership
Traditional brokerage: the broker holds your assets in "street name." You have a claim. They have the asset. Dusk Trade: real ownership onchain. The asset is yours. Settled instantly. No "we'll process your request in 2-3 business days."
Settlement
Traditional: T+2. Sometimes longer. Funds settle days after you trade. Dusk: deterministic settlement. The trade is final when it happens. Not when a back office catches up.
Composability
Traditional: your MMF sits in your brokerage account. You can't use it as collateral elsewhere. You can't plug it into DeFi protocols. Dusk Trade: tokenized assets are composable. They work with the rest of the onchain financial system.
Here's what I find interesting. Dusk Trade isn't trying to replace traditional finance. It's structured to operate as a regulated MTF and investment platform, compliant with applicable EU regulations. That's not "move fast and break things." That's "build it properly so institutions can actually use it."
The neobroker model isn't a crypto exchange pretending to be a broker. It's financial market infrastructure built for tokenized assets from the ground up.
Traditional finance works. It's just slow, opaque, and siloed. Dusk Trade's bet is that tokenized assets with real ownership, instant settlement, and DeFi-grade composability can do the same things better.
The question isn't whether tokenized finance wins. It's whether regulated infrastructure gets there first, or unregulated DeFi does. Dusk is betting on the regulated path.
#dusk $DUSK
Now compare that to what @Dusk is building with Dusk Trade.
Dusk Trade is a neobroker for tokenized financial assets on DuskEVM. The pitch isn't "crypto trading." It's bringing the assets traditional investors already know — MMFs, ETFs, bonds, real-world assets — onto Dusk's infrastructure.
Here's what changes when those assets move onchain.
Ownership
Traditional brokerage: the broker holds your assets in "street name." You have a claim. They have the asset. Dusk Trade: real ownership onchain. The asset is yours. Settled instantly. No "we'll process your request in 2-3 business days."
Settlement
Traditional: T+2. Sometimes longer. Funds settle days after you trade. Dusk: deterministic settlement. The trade is final when it happens. Not when a back office catches up.
Composability
Traditional: your MMF sits in your brokerage account. You can't use it as collateral elsewhere. You can't plug it into DeFi protocols. Dusk Trade: tokenized assets are composable. They work with the rest of the onchain financial system.
Here's what I find interesting. Dusk Trade isn't trying to replace traditional finance. It's structured to operate as a regulated MTF and investment platform, compliant with applicable EU regulations. That's not "move fast and break things." That's "build it properly so institutions can actually use it."
The neobroker model isn't a crypto exchange pretending to be a broker. It's financial market infrastructure built for tokenized assets from the ground up.
Traditional finance works. It's just slow, opaque, and siloed. Dusk Trade's bet is that tokenized assets with real ownership, instant settlement, and DeFi-grade composability can do the same things better.
The question isn't whether tokenized finance wins. It's whether regulated infrastructure gets there first, or unregulated DeFi does. Dusk is betting on the regulated path.
#dusk $DUSK
2
83
翻訳参照
XPL Trading Campaign is live. Generate at least $500 volume on
$XPL
{spot}(XPLUSDT)
XPL Trading Campaign is live. Generate at least $500 volume on
$XPL
$XPL
128
·
--
ブリッシュ
翻訳参照
Most people hear "privacy blockchain" and think it's built from scratch. New language. New tools. Developers have to learn everything from zero.
That's been the problem with privacy L1s for years. The tech might be impressive, but if builders can't use the tools they already know, adoption stalls before it starts.
@Dusk_Foundation took a different path.
DuskEVM mainnet is coming. That's the EVM-compatible application layer in the Dusk stack. For developers, this is huge. Solidity. Ethereum tooling. Familiar workflows. The path from "I build on Ethereum" to "I build on Dusk" isn't a rewrite. It's a migration.
But here's the part that got my attention. DuskEVM doesn't just copy Ethereum. It adds something Ethereum doesn't have — confidential EVM workflows through Hedger, Dusk's privacy module.
Hedger uses homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. Fancy terms, but the idea is simple. Transactions can be processed without revealing the underlying data. Amounts stay hidden. Counterparties stay private. But everything is still verifiable. Still reviewable when authorized.
That combination shouldn't work. Privacy usually comes at the cost of verifiability. You hide something, and you can't prove anything about it. Hedger flips that. You can prove what happened without exposing what happened.
For regulated finance, that's not a nice-to-have. It's the missing piece. Privacy where needed. Transparency where useful. And for developers — the tools they already know.
EVM compatibility gets builders in the door. Privacy keeps them there.
What matters more to you for adoption — developer familiarity or technical innovation?
#dusk $DUSK
Most people hear "privacy blockchain" and think it's built from scratch. New language. New tools. Developers have to learn everything from zero.
That's been the problem with privacy L1s for years. The tech might be impressive, but if builders can't use the tools they already know, adoption stalls before it starts.
@Dusk took a different path.
DuskEVM mainnet is coming. That's the EVM-compatible application layer in the Dusk stack. For developers, this is huge. Solidity. Ethereum tooling. Familiar workflows. The path from "I build on Ethereum" to "I build on Dusk" isn't a rewrite. It's a migration.
But here's the part that got my attention. DuskEVM doesn't just copy Ethereum. It adds something Ethereum doesn't have — confidential EVM workflows through Hedger, Dusk's privacy module.
Hedger uses homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. Fancy terms, but the idea is simple. Transactions can be processed without revealing the underlying data. Amounts stay hidden. Counterparties stay private. But everything is still verifiable. Still reviewable when authorized.
That combination shouldn't work. Privacy usually comes at the cost of verifiability. You hide something, and you can't prove anything about it. Hedger flips that. You can prove what happened without exposing what happened.
For regulated finance, that's not a nice-to-have. It's the missing piece. Privacy where needed. Transparency where useful. And for developers — the tools they already know.
EVM compatibility gets builders in the door. Privacy keeps them there.
What matters more to you for adoption — developer familiarity or technical innovation?
#dusk $DUSK
That's been the problem with privacy L1s for years. The tech might be impressive, but if builders can't use the tools they already know, adoption stalls before it starts.
@Dusk took a different path.
DuskEVM mainnet is coming. That's the EVM-compatible application layer in the Dusk stack. For developers, this is huge. Solidity. Ethereum tooling. Familiar workflows. The path from "I build on Ethereum" to "I build on Dusk" isn't a rewrite. It's a migration.
But here's the part that got my attention. DuskEVM doesn't just copy Ethereum. It adds something Ethereum doesn't have — confidential EVM workflows through Hedger, Dusk's privacy module.
Hedger uses homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge proofs. Fancy terms, but the idea is simple. Transactions can be processed without revealing the underlying data. Amounts stay hidden. Counterparties stay private. But everything is still verifiable. Still reviewable when authorized.
That combination shouldn't work. Privacy usually comes at the cost of verifiability. You hide something, and you can't prove anything about it. Hedger flips that. You can prove what happened without exposing what happened.
For regulated finance, that's not a nice-to-have. It's the missing piece. Privacy where needed. Transparency where useful. And for developers — the tools they already know.
EVM compatibility gets builders in the door. Privacy keeps them there.
What matters more to you for adoption — developer familiarity or technical innovation?
#dusk $DUSK
1
74
ログインして、さらにコンテンツを読む
厳選トピックで世界の暗号資産トレーダーの仲間入り
⚡️ 暗号資産に関する最新かつ有益な情報が見つかります。
💬 世界最大の暗号資産取引所から信頼されています。
👍 認証を受けたクリエイターから、有益なインサイトを得られます。
メール / 電話番号