Dusk working with Chainlink looks straightforward until you ask which direction the data is moving. Then it gets interesting, because the two directions have completely different privacy properties.
Data coming in is the easy half. A Dusk contract holding a tokenised bond needs reference rates, FX, the NAV of a fund. All of that is public information by nature. An oracle writing a euro rate onto Dusk leaks nothing about who holds what, because the number was never private to begin with. Privacy is untouched.
Data going out is where it stops being simple.
Take proof of reserve. The entire value of that pattern is publishing an attestation that reserves exist and match issued supply. On Dusk the holdings are shielded by design. So either the attestation reveals the balances it is attesting to, which defeats the point of shielding them, or it has to be a proof about hidden state rather than a publication of it. Those are very different engineering problems and they get talked about as if they were the same one.
Cross chain is the sharper version. Move a shielded Dusk asset to a transparent chain and the privacy does not travel with it. The moment it lands, the balance is public, the holder is public, the history is public. Every privacy guarantee Dusk builds ends precisely at that boundary.
Which makes interoperability a policy question rather than a technical one. Not can this asset move, but should this particular instrument be permitted to leave a compliant private environment for one where its holder register becomes a public dataset.
@Dusk_Foundation how do you think about that edge? Is bridging out of shielded state restricted at the protocol level, or is it left to whoever issues the instrument to decide?
Curious whether anyone here thinks privacy chains should refuse certain bridges outright.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA
Data coming in is the easy half. A Dusk contract holding a tokenised bond needs reference rates, FX, the NAV of a fund. All of that is public information by nature. An oracle writing a euro rate onto Dusk leaks nothing about who holds what, because the number was never private to begin with. Privacy is untouched.
Data going out is where it stops being simple.
Take proof of reserve. The entire value of that pattern is publishing an attestation that reserves exist and match issued supply. On Dusk the holdings are shielded by design. So either the attestation reveals the balances it is attesting to, which defeats the point of shielding them, or it has to be a proof about hidden state rather than a publication of it. Those are very different engineering problems and they get talked about as if they were the same one.
Cross chain is the sharper version. Move a shielded Dusk asset to a transparent chain and the privacy does not travel with it. The moment it lands, the balance is public, the holder is public, the history is public. Every privacy guarantee Dusk builds ends precisely at that boundary.
Which makes interoperability a policy question rather than a technical one. Not can this asset move, but should this particular instrument be permitted to leave a compliant private environment for one where its holder register becomes a public dataset.
@Dusk_Foundation how do you think about that edge? Is bridging out of shielded state restricted at the protocol level, or is it left to whoever issues the instrument to decide?
Curious whether anyone here thinks privacy chains should refuse certain bridges outright.
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk #RWA