2026-01-16 17:29:24

Looking at Dusk's architecture design, some people might complain that it's "too heavy": KYC validators, pre-approval contract templates, legal governance reviews, selective decryption interfaces... layer after layer, it feels like adding a bunch of shackles to the blockchain. In the Web3 trend that pursues lightness and efficiency, it indeed seems somewhat out of place.

But from another perspective, these seemingly redundant elements actually demonstrate what it means to understand the essence of finance. Securities are not meme coins; a single mistake could lead to lawsuits, fines, or license revocation. Since you're doing this, rather than gambling on luck, it's better to install institutional gates at every step. The design of those XSC contracts is fundamentally not about speed, but about ensuring no errors occur.

The awkward reality is that this "compliance redundancy" is currently not accepted by the market. Investors are unwilling to pay extra for "safer private placement shares," and institutions are also reluctant to pay for "an additional layer of auditing." Everyone is still focused on returns, liquidity, and how to exit quickly—whether the underlying is truly compliant by nature is a secondary concern. So, Dusk's rigor becomes an invisible cost. Doing the right thing is in place, but the market hasn't yet learned how to price "correctness."

Returning to the core: Dusk's design is not excessive, but forward-looking. When regulators start to crack down on pseudo-RWA projects, those once-mocked "redundant elements" will be seen as a real protective net that can withstand cycles.

DUSK-1,27%

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RektButAlive

· 11h ago

Here it comes again, compliance redundancy vs. market reality, the eternal deadlock. Dusk is indeed stacking up, but frankly, they are betting on surviving longer during the next cleanup. What really hurts is—investors currently don't care about this; they just want to ape in and exit quickly. Who the hell would pay for "an extra layer of audit"? The market's pricing logic is this cruel. When regulation arrives, those "redundant things" will become talismans. The question is, will they arrive in time? To be honest, being rigorous is the right direction, but it's just too early.

View OriginalReply0

MEV_Whisperer

· 01-19 02:28

Ha, you're right. Everyone is complaining about Dusk's redundancy now, but isn't it just playing an endless RWA game? When the wind comes, you'll see who isn't wearing pants. That's when you'll regret not copying Dusk's homework earlier. The market is always greedy. It doesn't want safe money; it insists on betting on regulatory sleep. Dusk's setup is indeed heavy, but there's a reason for that. We just can't understand it now. Honestly, I'm more curious about what those light projects will do when regulation truly arrives. It's correct but no one is willing to pay for it—that's the current state of Web3, sigh. Those XSC designs are actually a backup plan for the future. Smart people understand. Now mocking Dusk, but when liquidation begins, you'll be kneeling to thank it. "Compliance" redundancy today is a cost; tomorrow it might be a moat. If you only look at yields and ignore the underlying assets, you'll eventually have to repay the debt. It's like wearing a bulletproof vest in a 100-meter race. People call you stupid, but only when the gunfire starts do you realize the truth. Dusk is playing a very big game, but the chessboard hasn't reached that stage yet.

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 01-17 08:49

This is what you call knowing but the market just doesn't buy in --- That's right, but who cares about compliance now... everyone is chasing returns --- Dusk's approach is indeed rigorous, but the problem is the current market doesn't need such rigor at all --- We'll only realize what it means to be ahead when regulation actually arrives. How long will that take? --- The invisible compliance costs are a burden; investors would rather gamble on quick exits than your "insurance" --- It's a bit like doing the right thing but being mocked by the times, but I bet it will survive until the day it's proven right --- KYC, audits, legal reviews... before a project even launches, who bears the costs? --- Securitization definitely can't be done casually, but the market isn't ready for that awareness yet --- You have to live until that day too. The flow of funds into quick-exit assets—that's the reality

View OriginalReply0

NFTPessimist

· 01-16 17:59

Doing things so complicated will eventually be counterproductive. Right now, no one is willing to pay extra for compliance. When regulations come, these mechanisms might just become burdens. --- Dusk really overthinks things. The market just wants quick in and out; who cares about multiple layers of auditing. --- It sounds nice, but in reality, if this system is actually implemented, gas fees will double. --- It's just a load of nonsense; it's only shifting the risk to users. --- When regulations really start to crack down, it won't just be a compliance issue anymore. --- Being too strict can actually become a competitive disadvantage—that's the current market situation. --- I just want to know if this architecture can actually run efficiently in practice. --- It's that same rhetoric of "I'm right, and the market hasn't caught up yet." --- Honestly, I can't see what the fundamental difference is between this and traditional finance. --- When it comes to compliance, you either do it all or not at all. Half-measures are the biggest loss.

View OriginalReply0

SandwichTrader

· 01-16 17:48

I am a seasoned veteran in the crypto world, having seen too many projects go through cycles of life and death. Dusk's approach is indeed heavy, but there's a reason for that—when the wind comes, you'll know. --- Honestly, no one is willing to pay the price for compliance right now. When regulators finally take action one day, those projects that mocked Dusk's "chains" will be the ones crying. --- KYC, legal review, multi-layer verification... It sounds slow, but in finance, one careless move can lead to fines and license confiscation. No one can afford to gamble. --- I understand too well that the market doesn't give a "correct" price, but it's normal for innovative ideas to be mocked. When the cycle arrives, some will naturally regret. --- The problem is this—investors only look at returns and exit speed; no one cares whether your underlying is truly compliant. Compliance costs are just wasted expenses. --- I just don't understand why people want to play "light" with financial products. Securities are not meme coins; one mistake and you're done. --- Dusk's logic is worthy of the chaotic state of the crypto world, but right now, it just can't sell at a price. We can only wait.

View OriginalReply0

SpeakWithHatOn

· 01-16 17:48

This is a typical story of prophets being laughed at. Dusk is now like dancing in a bulletproof vest; everyone says it's a burden, but they'll understand only when bullets really start flying. Compliance—no one thanks you when it's done well, but when something goes wrong, it's all your fault. Honestly, I prefer those projects that dare to be "heavy." These days, anything too light usually doesn't end well. The market will eventually pay for this rigorous approach. Those mocking Dusk now will probably be the first to rush over for a share when the time comes. Don't worry, the regulatory cleanup drama has just begun. Actually, Dusk is just installing airbags for itself and investors. Some see it as a waste, others see it as worth it. KYC and contract review may seem cumbersome, but in reality, it's just fighting risk. I support that. Just wait and see—when that day comes, the "redundant" stuff will turn into a moat.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentSage

· 01-16 17:35

It's indeed heavy, but this is what true finance looks like. Those who complain, ten years ago they were also complaining about compliance. Wait, how come I find this logic a bit convincing...... The layers of gates look stupid, but when it comes to litigation day, you'll understand what "valuable" really means. Honestly, the market doesn't buy right now, but isn't that the best moat? Everyone is gambling, while Dusk is in armor. It feels like Dusk's path is particularly lonely; doing the right thing often goes unappreciated. If the market doesn't give a "correct" price, then just wait to be educated—it's only a matter of time. As the saying goes, once regulation arrives, the task of picking the best among the mediocre begins.

View OriginalReply0