I know..... assumed privacy here was mainly about hiding transaction details. But the more I looked at the problem, the less simple it seemed.
Banks, exchanges, and custodians still need to verify transactions. That part cannot just disappear because financial data is sensitive. The uncomfortable question is what exactly each party needs to see in order to perform that verifiation.
This is where selective disclosure caught my attention.
I kept coming back to the idea that verification does not necessarily mean exposing everything. If an approved party can verify what is required while the rest remains confidetial, then the process starts looking less like an all-or-nothing choice.
I initially thought privacy and verification might naturally pull in opposite directions. One asks for less exposure, while the other seems to require information..... But selective disclosure makes that assumption harder to hold onto.
The interesting part isn't simply that data can stay confidential. It's the separation between what someone needs to verify and everything they don't need to know.
That distinction feels important because financial information isn't just another piece of data. Yet the information provided here leaves me thinking about something more specific: how much visibility is actually necessary for trust between institutions and their customers?
Maybe the real question isn't whether verification can happen privately, but where the boundary should sit between proving enough and revealing too much. I’m still thinking about where that line belongs time well tell 🤔.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Banks, exchanges, and custodians still need to verify transactions. That part cannot just disappear because financial data is sensitive. The uncomfortable question is what exactly each party needs to see in order to perform that verifiation.
This is where selective disclosure caught my attention.
I kept coming back to the idea that verification does not necessarily mean exposing everything. If an approved party can verify what is required while the rest remains confidetial, then the process starts looking less like an all-or-nothing choice.
I initially thought privacy and verification might naturally pull in opposite directions. One asks for less exposure, while the other seems to require information..... But selective disclosure makes that assumption harder to hold onto.
The interesting part isn't simply that data can stay confidential. It's the separation between what someone needs to verify and everything they don't need to know.
That distinction feels important because financial information isn't just another piece of data. Yet the information provided here leaves me thinking about something more specific: how much visibility is actually necessary for trust between institutions and their customers?
Maybe the real question isn't whether verification can happen privately, but where the boundary should sit between proving enough and revealing too much. I’m still thinking about where that line belongs time well tell 🤔.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk