In various discussions within the crypto community, "compliance" is often disparaged—considered too slow, too conservative, not cool enough, and even seen as the enemy of innovation.
But if you've looked into how traditional finance actually operates, you'll find a paradoxical truth: the reason the largest pools of capital don't enter blockchain isn't because on-chain yields aren't attractive, but because the regulatory boundaries are too vague.
This is also why I started paying attention to projects like Dusk Network. Its approach is quite unique—not proving that "the chain can overturn rules," but addressing a more solid issue: under the current regulatory framework, can on-chain systems still operate normally?
**Institutions aren't actually afraid of volatility**
Retail investors fear price drops. But what is the real nightmare for institutions? Regulatory uncertainty.
Market fluctuations can be hedged with models, but if regulatory policies suddenly change, or compliance requirements are constantly shifting, the entire business could collapse overnight. Many DeFi projects are designed with an implicit assumption: that technology is advanced enough, and reality will ultimately be forced to "adapt" to blockchain.
But the reality is quite the opposite.
Any system that truly aims to enter the core of finance must first learn to coexist with existing rules. Dusk's value lies precisely in this foundational principle.
**Privacy isn't about hiding, but "controllable transparency"**
When it comes to Dusk, the topic of "privacy" is unavoidable. But there's a key distinction here.
Traditional privacy solutions operate on the logic that information is completely invisible.
Dusk, on the other hand, adopts a more realistic financial approach: information is private by default, but can be selectively exposed when necessary—disclose to regulators when required, verify with trading counterparts when needed. This way, privacy is protected without violating compliance requirements.
This perspective actually aligns better with the needs of future institutional finance.
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.
In various discussions within the crypto community, "compliance" is often disparaged—considered too slow, too conservative, not cool enough, and even seen as the enemy of innovation.
But if you've looked into how traditional finance actually operates, you'll find a paradoxical truth: the reason the largest pools of capital don't enter blockchain isn't because on-chain yields aren't attractive, but because the regulatory boundaries are too vague.
This is also why I started paying attention to projects like Dusk Network. Its approach is quite unique—not proving that "the chain can overturn rules," but addressing a more solid issue: under the current regulatory framework, can on-chain systems still operate normally?
**Institutions aren't actually afraid of volatility**
Retail investors fear price drops. But what is the real nightmare for institutions? Regulatory uncertainty.
Market fluctuations can be hedged with models, but if regulatory policies suddenly change, or compliance requirements are constantly shifting, the entire business could collapse overnight. Many DeFi projects are designed with an implicit assumption: that technology is advanced enough, and reality will ultimately be forced to "adapt" to blockchain.
But the reality is quite the opposite.
Any system that truly aims to enter the core of finance must first learn to coexist with existing rules. Dusk's value lies precisely in this foundational principle.
**Privacy isn't about hiding, but "controllable transparency"**
When it comes to Dusk, the topic of "privacy" is unavoidable. But there's a key distinction here.
Traditional privacy solutions operate on the logic that information is completely invisible.
Dusk, on the other hand, adopts a more realistic financial approach: information is private by default, but can be selectively exposed when necessary—disclose to regulators when required, verify with trading counterparts when needed. This way, privacy is protected without violating compliance requirements.
This perspective actually aligns better with the needs of future institutional finance.