Looking at Dusk's approach, it has always been counterintuitive from the very beginning. Instead of engaging with crypto natives, it has set its sights on the compliant financial systems of the real world. It sounds quite high-end, but in this market, you know— the result is often slow and complex, lacking that narrative capable of igniting emotions.

Dusk's core logic is actually sound: for true assets to be on-chain, they must have privacy protection and compliance capabilities. If contract details, business structures, and identity information are all laid out on the public chain, is that compliant? Clearly not. From a logical perspective, this statement is almost impeccable.

The question is: do traditional financial institutions really need to migrate to public chains?

This is the biggest and most dangerous assumption Dusk is making. Because banks, brokerages, and clearinghouses already have a very mature system in place. Not decentralizing? But it's stable, controllable, and compliant. The system has been running for decades, and all risks are well understood.

To put it simply, this is not a technical issue; it's a psychological one.

The instinct of traditional financial institutions is to eliminate uncertainty. And what is a public chain? It’s a chaotic mix of uncertainties. Code bugs, consensus attacks, governance failures, community splits—these are common in the crypto world, but in traditional finance, they would be catastrophic.

Dusk aims to dispel concerns with features like "selective disclosure," "auditable privacy," and "compliance modules." But you must understand: you are using the complexity of cryptographic systems to compare against a system that has been refined through law, processes, and institutional frameworks. Can this gamble be supported?