Understanding the true value of a blockchain sometimes requires a different perspective. When I was researching Dusk, I suddenly realized that viewing it from the dimension of "securities and asset digitization" is the only way to truly understand what it is doing.
Many blockchains talk about asset on-chain but mostly stay at the surface level of tokenization. But when it comes to securities, equity, debt, and other such assets, the complexity skyrockets instantly. Privacy issues, compliance requirements, audit needs—all are indispensable.
In the real world, securities assets are not just about issuing a Token. Information disclosure must have boundaries, holding permissions must be controlled, and trading processes must be subject to regulation. These are standard infrastructure elements in traditional finance. Dusk’s approach is straightforward: it does not assume these rules will disappear but defaults to their long-term existence, then considers how on-chain systems can adapt to these real-world constraints.
When I looked into materials about Dusk, I clearly felt its emphasis on the question of "who can see what, and under what conditions." For securities and real assets, privacy design is not about resisting regulation but about preventing information from being indiscriminately leaked. Dusk emphasizes controlled visibility within a compliance framework—not full transparency, nor complete anonymity, but precise authorization.
Honestly, at first, this kind of design is not easy to package into an engaging story. But when you start to think about what types of assets might go on-chain, you realize: without this structural design, asset digitization is basically unfeasible. The issue is not about whether the technology works but whether the rules permit it.
Looking at this chain now, I am more inclined to understand it as "the infrastructure that pre-aligns rules for asset digitization." Its value is not in generating a high transaction volume but in having a ready-to-use system in place when real securities and assets finally go on-chain. That’s also why I continue to pay close attention to it.
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
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeNightmare
· 13h ago
Alright, finally someone has clarified this matter. Not all chains are compliant with yap.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-a5fa8bd0
· 13h ago
Yes, compliance is indeed something most blockchains haven't fully understood.
Only those who have truly competed with traditional finance know how strict these constraints are.
View OriginalReply0
ConsensusDissenter
· 13h ago
This is the truth. The compliant framework indeed can't be avoided; it's better to face it directly.
View OriginalReply0
GamefiGreenie
· 13h ago
Oh no, it makes some sense, but can this logic really be implemented?
---
The compliance and privacy setup sounds great, but can it really make money...
---
This idea is indeed different, but what about the token price?
---
Bro, are you defending Dusk or genuinely optimistic...
---
Controlled visibility, precise authorization—sounds like financial infrastructure built for institutions. What do retail investors get?
---
Wait, are you saying that in the end, this still relies on traditional finance for endorsement? Why not just use TradFi directly?
---
It's rare to see an analysis that doesn't hype up the bull dreams, but will such a chain really see volume?
---
So Dusk is actually doing a ToB business, not ToC? Then what's the point of trading tokens...
View OriginalReply0
NotFinancialAdvice
· 13h ago
Wow, this is really thinking things through. Most chains are just hyping TVL and trading volume, but this guy directly sees that compliance is the real key bottleneck.
Understanding the true value of a blockchain sometimes requires a different perspective. When I was researching Dusk, I suddenly realized that viewing it from the dimension of "securities and asset digitization" is the only way to truly understand what it is doing.
Many blockchains talk about asset on-chain but mostly stay at the surface level of tokenization. But when it comes to securities, equity, debt, and other such assets, the complexity skyrockets instantly. Privacy issues, compliance requirements, audit needs—all are indispensable.
In the real world, securities assets are not just about issuing a Token. Information disclosure must have boundaries, holding permissions must be controlled, and trading processes must be subject to regulation. These are standard infrastructure elements in traditional finance. Dusk’s approach is straightforward: it does not assume these rules will disappear but defaults to their long-term existence, then considers how on-chain systems can adapt to these real-world constraints.
When I looked into materials about Dusk, I clearly felt its emphasis on the question of "who can see what, and under what conditions." For securities and real assets, privacy design is not about resisting regulation but about preventing information from being indiscriminately leaked. Dusk emphasizes controlled visibility within a compliance framework—not full transparency, nor complete anonymity, but precise authorization.
Honestly, at first, this kind of design is not easy to package into an engaging story. But when you start to think about what types of assets might go on-chain, you realize: without this structural design, asset digitization is basically unfeasible. The issue is not about whether the technology works but whether the rules permit it.
Looking at this chain now, I am more inclined to understand it as "the infrastructure that pre-aligns rules for asset digitization." Its value is not in generating a high transaction volume but in having a ready-to-use system in place when real securities and assets finally go on-chain. That’s also why I continue to pay close attention to it.