2026-01-19 20:21:20

After blockchain entered the financial track, an old problem repeatedly troubled developers: how to protect transaction confidentiality while meeting regulatory audit requirements? Most projects chose compromise solutions. But since its founding in 2018, Dusk has been exploring solutions to this challenge using a modular architecture.

Understanding Dusk from a different perspective—it's not a monolithic system, but rather like building blocks. Consensus engine, privacy layer, audit interface, asset tokenization modules—these components can be freely combined. What does this mean for financial institutions? It means true autonomy.

Why must it be modular? Frankly, different financial institutions have vastly different demands. Investment banks and funds may have completely different privacy parameter settings. Dusk offers them a "buffet" of options: on the basis of ensuring secure interconnectedness at the bottom layer, they can customize privacy levels, integrate suitable KYC/AML tools, and even adjust settlement speeds. The traditional "one-size-fits-all" approach of blockchain is broken here.

The most interesting part is the balance between privacy and auditability. Zero-knowledge proof technology encrypts and locks transaction content, protecting trade secrets and identity information. But this is not a black box. The built-in audit module provides a backdoor for regulatory nodes—if authorized, specific transactions can be inspected and decrypted, and audit reports can be generated at any time. Sounds contradictory? Not really. Transactions are kept confidential from the public but transparent in rules—precisely what securitized assets and cross-border clearing and settlement require.

Therefore, Dusk’s modular design is not just a technical marvel. Essentially, it builds a set of infrastructure that truly fits the way the financial industry operates. Institutions can conduct real business on-chain, not just speculate on tokens. The robustness of this fortress comes from its flexibility.

DUSK-23,98%

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MergeConflict

· 7h ago

Finally, a project dares to touch the "privacy + regulation" nerve, feeling like walking a tightrope but not falling off Dusk's modular approach is indeed impressive, zero-knowledge proofs lock transactions, then they open a backdoor for regulation... Basically, it's a trick played on the public, honest with the rules, and institutional players applaud But the real question is, will major financial players actually buy in, or is this just another dream of "doing business on the chain"? Wait, this buffet-style customization... could it actually increase complexity and make auditing even more difficult? Modularity is indeed a concept, but when it comes to real-world financial scenarios, how deep the water is, is really hard to say

View OriginalReply0

HashBard

· 01-21 15:06

ngl, the "back door for regulators" bit hits different when you actually think about the narrative arc here... it's not privacy theater, it's privacy *with intent*. that's the poetic move nobody talks about.

Reply0

GweiWatcher

· 01-20 18:20

Modular architecture is indeed a clever idea; finally, a project has thought of giving institutional players real customization rights. However, the combination of zero-knowledge proofs and audit backdoors... Do regulators really trust this? Or is it just another round of game-playing? How has Dusk been doing over the past few years? Are there real financial institutions using it? A privacy level buffet sounds great, but in the end, it still depends on whose KYC/AML tools are more robust. Talking about doing real business on-chain has been around for years; it all depends on whether it can be implemented. The block-based design theory is solid; the key is how many non-accidentally crashing solutions can be combined.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomMiner

· 01-19 20:51

Finally, someone has understood that privacy and auditing are not mutually exclusive; it all depends on how you structure it.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-00be86fc

· 01-19 20:50

This modular approach is truly refreshing; finally, a project that doesn't rely on compromise to survive. The combination of zero-knowledge proofs and audit backdoors feels like it has really untied the knot between privacy and regulation. By the way, has Dusk's logic been implemented? Are any financial institutions actually using it now? Compared to those one-size-fits-all blockchains, this buffet-style model is indeed more attractive to institutions. I'm still a bit worried—could the backdoor in zero-knowledge proofs become a new vulnerability? Building blocks design sounds simple, but really tuning each module properly isn't easy either. This is the correct way for blockchain to enter finance—not just decentralization show-offs, but genuinely solving institutional pain points.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBarber

· 01-19 20:37

Hey, this is the right way. Do we have to insist on privacy and auditing? Dusk's approach is indeed different; modular building really feels satisfying. --- Zero-knowledge proof is solved, but the question is whether it will just become a PPT project in practice. Let’s see. --- All-you-can-eat style choices sound great, but will financial institutions really use them? Still worried about getting caught. --- The rule that trading pairs are kept confidential to the public but transparent to rules is brilliant. Finally, a project that has figured out how to play the financial chain. --- Modular architecture is fine, but the key is whether enough institutions are willing to pay. Can Dusk withstand the pressure? --- From 2018 until now, this patience is truly impressive. Most projects have already run away. --- So basically, it’s still about building financial infrastructure, not some hype concept nonsense. Quite interesting. --- The backdoor setup for regulatory nodes sounds very rule-aware. Unlike some projects that are always fighting regulators.

View OriginalReply0

MeltdownSurvivalist

· 01-19 20:32

This is the real deal. Finally, someone is not just thinking about trading coins.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSage

· 01-19 20:26

Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed excellent, but how can we ensure that "backdoors" won't be abused? That's the key. --- Modular design sounds good, but I'm afraid in the end everyone will do their own thing, making interconnected underlying infrastructure a false proposition. --- Protecting privacy while ensuring transparent regulation—honestly, this contradiction can never be fully resolved; we can only sway back and forth. --- Having pondered since 2018, Dusk is truly patient, but does the market give opportunities? That's what really worries people. --- A buffet-style choice sounds great, but do financial institutions really use it this way? It seems like big institutions set the rules. --- Institutions doing real business on-chain without trading tokens? Hmm, I remain skeptical—everyone wants arbitrage. --- Zero-knowledge proofs with audit backdoors—this design idea is quite clear-minded, acknowledging that privacy and regulation must compromise. --- Modular design, either it becomes a "master key" or "useless," it's very hard to find a middle ground.

View OriginalReply0

LiquiditySurfer

· 01-19 20:24

Is the zero-knowledge proof deep enough? It feels like once the privacy backdoor is opened, everything is exposed.

View OriginalReply0