2026-01-14 20:23:16

On the surface, open validation—what's the reality? Just look at Dusk's node distribution and you'll understand.

By the end of this year, the top five validation nodes account for over 60% of block production—these nodes are mostly compliant tech companies and licensed institutions approved by the foundation in Europe. The participation threshold is very high: strict KYC is required. In plain terms, this is "permissioned consensus." Even if the code is open source, the admission rules are already set in stone.

The problem is: this model neither delivers what Web3 wants nor meets the needs of traditional finance.

On one hand, centralized risks do exist. If one of these institutions refuses to include certain transactions (for example, funds involving sanctioned regions) due to regulatory pressure, the entire network lacks checks and balances. If key nodes fail collectively, the system could come to a halt—this is not hypothetical; it's an inherent vulnerability in the architecture.

On the other hand, its efficiency is inferior to consortium blockchains. Dusk's design is essentially no different from consortium chains like Hyperledger Fabric—both are open source, closed access, and managed by institutional entities. Rather than a decentralized network, it's more like a dedicated infrastructure disguised as a blockchain.

The original vision of the Dusk Foundation was indeed clear: to enable the legal circulation of digital securities under the MiCA framework, designing features like XSC privacy contracts, selective transparency, and fiat-friendly gas—these seemed quite forward-looking in 2024. But now, the problem is that it’s losing trust on both sides—Web3 communities feel betrayed of their ideals, while traditional finance finds it inefficient. This compliant island is starting to feel like a no-entry zone.

DUSK-0,8%

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

airdrop_whisperer

· 14h ago

Is 60% of the block production power concentrated in five nodes? Isn't that just centralized with a different skin? How can they still call it decentralization? Both sides are dissatisfied, right? That means being stuck in the middle with nowhere to go. Looking at this architecture design, it feels like a compromise forced by regulation, and in the end, nothing is gained. The term "compliance isolated island" is really apt; it's just a dead end surrounded. Raising the KYC threshold directly kills half of Web3's significance. Talking about open source, the access rules have already been set in stone. Isn't that just closing your eyes and stealing a bell? Hyperledger is much more straightforward; at least they don't pretend. If a key node drops the chain, everything stops—how risky is that? Less efficient than consortium chains, and the ideal has also been betrayed. Dusk has really fallen into a trap. The compromise under the MiCA framework is ultimately a failed experiment.

View OriginalReply0

SybilSlayer

· 14h ago

Is 60% of the block production power concentrated in five entities? That's what you call decentralization, hilarious. Not only is it insufficiently decentralized, but it also hampers efficiency behind the alliance chain. Dusk is truly awkward. Honestly, compliance and Web3 are inherently at odds. Forcing them together will only please neither side. If KYC thresholds are so restrictive, don't call it open source. That's just a skin-deep centralized system. If nodes go offline simultaneously, it's game over. This architecture itself is a ticking time bomb. Instead of building this permissioned consensus system, it's better to just use an alliance chain for a more straightforward approach.

View OriginalReply0

SerLiquidated

· 14h ago

60% of block production rights are monopolized by five nodes? That's what they call "openness," haha. --- With KYC thresholds and foundation approval, it sounds compliant but essentially it's centralized with a different coat of paint. --- It can't provide the freedom Web3 needs, nor can it meet the efficiency of traditional finance—it's stuck in the middle. --- If key nodes all fail simultaneously, the network halts—such risk design is unparalleled. --- Pretending to be a decentralized alliance chain, even Hyperledger wouldn't dare to play like that. --- Originally wanted to make a splash under the MiCA framework, but now both the Web3 community and traditional finance are not on board—really awkward.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeBarbecue

· 14h ago

Haha, alright, this is the so-called "I neither please you nor please him" tragedy. Not pleasing either side, Dusk is indeed in an awkward position. You're not wrong; concentrating 60% of the weight and still claiming decentralization? Pure bluff. The analogy of a compliance island is spot on; truly inaccessible to everyone. The monopoly of the top five nodes in block production, is this even consensus... The architecture is so fragile that one node going offline means GG, outrageous. It's just an improved consortium chain, wrapped in a blockchain shell. It's a bit of a pity that the MiCA framework still ends up like this. Web3 and traditional finance both can't handle this, it's embarrassing. KYC thresholds are so high, and they still call it decentralization? Laughable. Basically, they just want to have it both ways, but end up with nothing.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMelonWatcher

· 14h ago

This is a typical case of trying to please both sides. Either fully decentralize or honestly build an alliance chain; insisting on riding both horses. Centralization at 60% and still calling it open source? That's hilarious. Really, this KYC admission system has boxed in the entire "consensus." What's the essential difference from traditional banking systems? Less efficient than alliance chains and still pretending to be Web3. This move is a bit absurd. Dusk's original concept was pretty good, but now with this approach, no wonder both sides are giving up on it.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 14h ago

This is a typical case of being caught between two sides, torn apart in the middle. --- Compliance island is well said, this term should be noted. --- 60% of the weight is concentrated on five nodes? Still dare to call it decentralization haha. --- Basically, it's just playing traditional finance under the guise of blockchain, who are they fooling? --- Web3 wants freedom, traditional finance wants control, Dusk wants both — but in the end, nothing is gained. --- Key nodes dropping the chain together and causing a complete halt—this architecture design is truly brilliant. --- Such high KYC thresholds and open-source code? Open-sourcing is just lonely. --- I actually think alliance chains should be designed like this, don’t come out under the banner of decentralization to confuse the public. --- Losing trust from both sides hits the point. Looking at Dusk now, it’s like a child abandoned by its parents. --- Want to give regulators an explanation, but also want to retain some of the ideals of blockchain. In the end, the balance is off.

View OriginalReply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 14h ago

60% of block production power is concentrated in five institutions. Is this called open validation? Laughable, it's a typical case of "I am very decentralized."

View OriginalReply0