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