2026-01-13 20:24:53

When mentioning Dusk Foundation, many people are attracted by that statement: providing compliant solutions under privacy finance. It sounds grand, but upon closer reflection, it becomes a bit vague. Privacy, public chains, compliance—these three concepts together are inherently paradoxical. Privacy demands untraceability, compliance requires full auditability, and public chains are meant to be visible to everyone. Choosing one is difficult enough; trying to combine all three is even more challenging.

Dusk didn't choose the path of "complete anonymity," but instead shifted towards "selective disclosure." In other words, everyday transactions maintain privacy externally, but when it involves compliance, regulation, or disputes, necessary information can be disclosed to specific institutions. This sounds quite rational, but here's the problem—the complexity of implementation is off the charts, and it also depends on whether real-world institutions are willing to adopt it.

From a technical standpoint, Dusk focuses not on TPS or low Gas fees, nor on meme stories. Its main emphasis is on zero-knowledge proofs, compliance modules, and privacy asset issuance frameworks. These things may sound unsexy, but once they are operational, they can find a place in traditional financial scenarios like securities tokenization, debt tokens, and equity tokens.

What are the real challenges?

First, the slow pace of innovation in traditional finance. No matter how well you do, others may lack the courage to adopt.

Second, the demand for privacy combined with compliance is real, but whether this market can grow large enough to support a full public chain ecosystem remains unverified.

Third, the DUSK token mainly plays roles in transaction fees, staking, and security incentives. If on-chain activity doesn’t pick up, these functions risk becoming "paper tigers."

My assessment of Dusk is: the direction is correct, and the logic is coherent, but the validation cycle will be particularly long. It doesn’t rely on emotional hype; it needs real applications to prove itself. Unfortunately, projects like this are often not favored in the crypto market because everyone is eager for "quick gains" rather than "the right answer."

DUSK-2,98%

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OnChainDetective

· 14h ago

selective disclosure sounds nice until you actually trace the wallet patterns and realize adoption rates are basically flatlined. historical data on similar "compliance + privacy" plays tells a different story than the whitepaper.

Reply0

WalletDetective

· 01-14 14:49

Selective disclosure sounds smart, but whether it can be implemented depends on whether institutions are willing, and that's the real issue. --- No matter how advanced zero-knowledge proofs are, without real-world applications, it's just a technical game. --- In simple terms, Dusk is creating an unverified market, and the stakes are too high. --- Traditional finance is too lazy to move; no matter how hard Dusk tries, it's all in vain. Is this fate? --- When tokens become just fee tools, I knew things would get pretty bleak later on. --- Logical consistency ≠ market acceptance. Haven't you learned this lesson well enough? --- Projects that don't touch on emotional concepts are basically suicide in the crypto world. Dusk's recent move was a bit too "honest." --- Privacy-compliant public chains sound like pie-in-the-sky promises. --- Long verification cycles mean that there won't be any action in the short term.

View OriginalReply0

StillBuyingTheDip

· 01-13 20:54

Selective disclosure sounds rational, but will the real world buy into it? The traditional finance folks are afraid of new things, so why would they proactively embrace privacy compliance?

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 01-13 20:54

Selective disclosure sounds pretty smart, but can it really work? It feels like trying to glue three contradictory things together with tape... --- I can understand DUSK's approach, but do those traditional finance folks really buy into it? I highly doubt it. --- Honestly, projects that require deep thinking like this don't get much traction in the crypto world because the market simply doesn't want logically consistent things; they just want stories that can skyrocket. --- Zero-knowledge proofs combined with scaling modules sound very cool, but once there's no on-chain activity, the DUSK token is just a decoration... --- I'm actually curious about how big this market really is. Is the demand for privacy + compliance really enough to support a full public chain? --- In simple terms, the direction is right, but the timing is off, and the verification cycle is so long that no one wants to play with it.

View OriginalReply0

DegenGambler

· 01-13 20:47

Selective disclosure sounds good, but it's actually a compromise plan. The key is that someone has to actually use it, otherwise it's just a castle in the air.

View OriginalReply0

SerumSquirter

· 01-13 20:36

To be honest, the Dusk thing is just a hot potato. Selective disclosure sounds smart, but in reality, it's just dancing on the edge. Whether DUSK has real transaction volume will depend on the future; without transaction volume, it's just an empty shell token. Traditional finance folks simply don't have the guts to use it, which is the most awkward part. All three options are difficult; forcing these three together was doomed from the start, and this path won't be easy. Let's wait until there's a real demand for security tokenization; talking about it now is just nonsense. No matter how impressive zero-knowledge proofs are, if no one uses them, it's all pointless. Projects like this often end up dead in the "correct but nobody wants it" dead end.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyOnMainnet

· 01-13 20:26

Selective disclosure sounds sophisticated, but it's actually just reserving a "backdoor" for regulators. The question is, who will actually use it? --- Instead of doing flashy tricks like TPS and Gas, they focus on zero-knowledge proofs... This approach is a bit "countertrend," but that's what makes it interesting. --- I'm impressed by the iteration speed of traditional finance. No matter how elegant Dusk's technical solutions are, they have to wait for those systems to turn around slowly. --- Basically, it's a gamble on market size, but no one knows how big this pie can finally get. --- The role of the DUSK token is a bit awkward. Without real applications supporting it, all designs are just castles in the air. --- The market needs rapid growth, but Dusk needs real applications... This is a natural misalignment. --- Privacy, compliance, and public chains—three-in-one? Just hearing it, you know it's hard to pull off. Dusk is taking on a thankless task. --- The direction is logically consistent, but in the crypto market, it's a "slowpoke," testing everyone's patience.

View OriginalReply0