#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Previously, I assumed that having many wallets was simply how crypto works. Make as many as you want, split things however you like, nobody asks why.
Reading about how Dusk's model for regulated assets is designed, I found a constraint that runs directly against that habit.
For a security, a pre-approved holder is not supposed to be able to hold more than one account. Not because someone is being restrictive for its own sake, but because a shareholder register has to answer one question cleanly: how much does this person own?
If the same approved person can quietly hold a position in five places, then every question built on ownership becomes ambiguous. Voting weight. Reporting thresholds. Limits on how much any single holder may control.
What I found particularly notable is that this is the opposite of what the rest of crypto optimises for. We treat address separation as privacy and as good practice. In a regulated instrument, that same separation is a defect.
So the design has to reconcile two things that pull apart. The holder should still have confidentiality against the public. The register should still be unambiguous about identity and size.
I am not sure how well those two hold together once real volume arrives, and I have not seen it tested publicly.
But from here I stopped assuming a wallet is a neutral container. For some assets, the wallet is part of the legal record, and the rules that apply to it come from somewhere other than the software.
Previously, I assumed that having many wallets was simply how crypto works. Make as many as you want, split things however you like, nobody asks why.
Reading about how Dusk's model for regulated assets is designed, I found a constraint that runs directly against that habit.
For a security, a pre-approved holder is not supposed to be able to hold more than one account. Not because someone is being restrictive for its own sake, but because a shareholder register has to answer one question cleanly: how much does this person own?
If the same approved person can quietly hold a position in five places, then every question built on ownership becomes ambiguous. Voting weight. Reporting thresholds. Limits on how much any single holder may control.
What I found particularly notable is that this is the opposite of what the rest of crypto optimises for. We treat address separation as privacy and as good practice. In a regulated instrument, that same separation is a defect.
So the design has to reconcile two things that pull apart. The holder should still have confidentiality against the public. The register should still be unambiguous about identity and size.
I am not sure how well those two hold together once real volume arrives, and I have not seen it tested publicly.
But from here I stopped assuming a wallet is a neutral container. For some assets, the wallet is part of the legal record, and the rules that apply to it come from somewhere other than the software.