From a design perspective, Dusk Foundation's方案几乎找不到什么漏洞。这个项目的野心很清晰：在「可验证」和「隐私保护」之间开辟一条新道路，而不是非此即彼地做选择。从纸面上看，这个思路优雅得不行。

The problem lies here—real-world development does not follow the theoretical script.

Traditional financial systems concern not only the dimension of "verifiability." They also care about responsibility tracing, post-intervention, fund freezing, transaction rollback, and enforcement. In essence, these operations directly infringe on privacy and decentralization. The difficulties Dusk faces are not technical but stem from fundamental institutional conflicts.

Specifically, Dusk aims to enable users to prove compliance with regulatory standards without fully revealing information. Ideally, this sounds reasonable. But in reality, regulatory thinking is quite the opposite—it is usually "interventionist" rather than "verification-based." Regulatory agencies are not satisfied with you proving "I am compliant"; what they actually want is "I must be able to intervene at any time."

This creates an irreconcilable paradox:

If the system truly protects privacy, it must limit intervention rights; if it allows strong intervention, it will inevitably undermine the privacy structure.

Dusk seeks a balance between these two forces, but this balance cannot be decided by a single project alone; it is determined through the collective game of society, legal frameworks, and power structures.

This is also my biggest concern about Dusk. It addresses a "future inevitable real problem," but it may not have the permission from the real world to solve this problem in an ideal manner.

This is not to say Dusk has no value. On the contrary—such projects' true value lies in forcing the entire world to confront this inherent contradiction.

But for investors or long-term followers, one point must be clear: Dusk's failure probability is not low, not because of design flaws, but because it directly challenges the fundamental logic of the existing order.