Treating blockchain as a system truly used by financial institutions, the problems immediately become apparent. Fully transparent ledgers, real-time public order flows, transaction details accessible for review—these features sound cool on a testnet, but in real-world finance, they become ticking time bombs of risk.



Here's an interesting comparison: traditional finance has been about clearly defining permission boundaries for hundreds of years. Many public blockchains, on the other hand, flip this idea—treating the ledger as a glass house. Dusk Network's approach is somewhat different—it doesn't deny transparency but asks a core question: transparency of what, transparency to whom?

Using zero-knowledge proofs, compliance of transactions and assets can be verified on-chain, ensuring that regulators and auditors see the information they need, while sensitive business data remains in necessary black boxes. The result is: the chain is no longer a loudspeaker in a teahouse but more like a financial infrastructure with clear permissions and responsibilities. For institutions, this architecture isn't unfamiliar; in fact, it's easier to integrate with existing processes.

This point is even more critical in RWA (Real-World Asset) scenarios. On-chain assets are not a one-time deal but a full-cycle process involving issuance, circulation, disclosure, and auditing. If the chain's design ignores privacy boundaries, issuers and investors will face unnecessary risks. Dusk embeds compliance verification directly into the chain, allowing the entire asset lifecycle to be validated, while keeping business secrets private—this is how RWA can operate sustainably over the long term.

The transaction layer also reflects pragmatic considerations. Fully public transactions on a public chain lead to front-running and MEV extraction, especially disadvantaging large funds. Dusk's privacy transaction mechanism ensures that transaction results are still trustworthy and settleable, but transaction intentions are not exposed prematurely. This isn't about reducing transparency but about reducing noise and manipulation opportunities, leading to more rational price formation.

Looking at the bigger picture, Dusk clearly isn't aiming to rely on hype for survival. It is laying the groundwork for a future where finance is on-chain. When regulations tighten and institutions gradually enter, what people need isn't the loudest chain but a foundational system that considers risks, rules, and responsibilities from the start. This choice may not be the fastest, but it's the right direction.
DUSK2,79%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
DuskSurfervip
· 9h ago
The glass house finance should have been broken long ago; transparency does not equal being alive. --- The zero-knowledge proof system, in simple terms, is "I prove I didn't cheat you, but let's keep our affairs private." --- When RWA (Real-World Assets) are on the rise, designs like Dusk become useful; otherwise, institutions will be exposed to their counterparties on the first day. --- Regarding MEV, nowadays large funds entering public chains have to gamble with luck; it's more stable to use privacy mechanisms like Dusk. --- Take your time and do quality work; after all, the hype won't sustain for ten years. --- The boundaries of permissions have been explored in traditional finance for hundreds of years; now we have to start over. But at least someone has finally figured it out.
View OriginalReply0
gas_guzzlervip
· 9h ago
To be honest, a lot of public chains in the past were overly transparent, which ended up being exploited by MEV for huge gains. This is a truly practical design.
View OriginalReply0
DefiVeteranvip
· 9h ago
Honestly, this is the truth. I'm already tired of projects that tout transparency as a cure-all. I understand Dusk's approach—it's the game that financial institutions have been playing for hundreds of years—be transparent where it needs to be, keep secrets where it should be. Institutions dare to enter large amounts, and they definitely won't choose the "tea house loudspeaker." I'm a bit intrigued by the privacy transaction mechanism; being front-run and exploited for profit is really disgusting. The question is how far this path can go, and it still depends on regulatory attitudes. But at least the direction is correct.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationWatchervip
· 9h ago
Someone finally said it: transparency has really been overhyped. Glass house finance will eventually cool down, and MEV vampires are thriving every day. Zero-knowledge proofs are brilliant; regulators can see the ledgers but can't peek into transaction details. Not all chains are considered infrastructure; most are still just social media. RWA without privacy is a landmine; Dusk's approach is a step in the right direction.
View OriginalReply0
BrokenDAOvip
· 9h ago
Honestly, this "selective transparency" sounds very appealing, but the mechanism itself is a matter of power distribution. Who defines "what transparency is given to whom"? In the end, it's still the operators who have the final say.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)