Many people are paying attention to the development of Dusk, but they may not fully understand the project's governance system. To be honest, the governance design challenges Dusk faces are quite complex—balancing decision-making efficiency, preventing abuse of power, and complying with regulatory requirements. This is not a simple matter.

**The Three Steps of Governance Power**

Decentralized governance at Dusk is unlikely to be achieved all at once; a phased approach is more realistic.

Currently, we are in the first phase: foundation-led + community voice. The foundation proposes important initiatives (such as technical upgrades, treasury management), and the community discusses and votes on these proposals through off-chain tools like forums and Snapshot. The foundation listens and respects community opinions but retains the final decision-making authority. In this phase, the foundation holds the most power, but it is not an autocracy—the community's voice can truly influence decisions.

Moving forward, we will enter the second phase: on-chain smart contract voting + delegated voting. At that time, $DUSK holders can directly vote on on-chain proposals or delegate their voting rights to professional representatives like technical or ecological committees. This step is crucial because it truly implements the concept of "code is law." Parameter adjustments, ecological fund allocations, and other decisions are automatically executed through smart contracts, with no one able to modify them arbitrarily.

Finally, the third phase: full empowerment to the community. The foundation becomes an advisory role and standards maintainer, responsible for legal compliance. Major strategic decisions, large treasury expenditures, and the foundation’s own budget—all are decided through on-chain governance votes based on $DUSK. The foundation’s power is completely diminished.

**Balancing Compliance and Autonomy**

Dusk cannot simply copy the governance models of other anonymous projects. Due to regulatory considerations, the governance mechanism must have special considerations. It needs to find a balance between full decentralization and legal enforceability. This is not a minor detail—it directly affects how long the project can survive.

Overall, Dusk is exploring a pragmatic governance path. It is not about radical full decentralization overnight, nor about conservatively maintaining the foundation’s permanent control. This gradual approach also offers valuable insights for other projects that need to consider compliance.