@Dusk_Foundation I keep coming back to one operational detail in Dusk: selective disclosure only matters if it reduces the amount of information institutions need to exchange outside the ledger.

Phoenix is interesting here because privacy is not simply about hiding transaction data. It can let counterparties prove the information required for a regulated workflow without exposing everything else. In securities markets, that distinction could affect reconciliation, compliance checks, and how many parties need access to the same underlying data.

That creates a useful investor metric for me: how many manual verification steps can actually disappear?

If an issuer, venue, custodian, and settlement layer can independently verify the required state from the same infrastructure, Dusk may be creating value through fewer coordination points rather than simply faster transactions.

“Privacy becomes infrastructure when it removes operational friction.”

The weakness is that institutions may still maintain parallel records for legal, internal-control, or risk reasons. In that case, Dusk could technically compress settlement while leaving the surrounding accounting burden largely intact.

So I’d watch the workflow, not just throughput: how much reconciliation is eliminated, how often participants rely on the same settlement state, and whether that reliance persists beyond pilot deployments.
#dusk #Dusk $DUSK $GPS $TUT
Điều gì quan trọng nhất đối với việc Dusk được các tổ chức áp dụng?