Honestly, when I first started paying attention to Dusk, I wasn't really attracted by any "big selling points." There was no overwhelming narrative bombardment, no new concepts changing every few days. In a bull market, it even seemed a bit quiet. But after I delved deeper, I realized—this "slow" approach might actually be the hardest thing for competitors to copy.

Looking at the development path from DuskEVM, Hedger, to DuskTrade, you'll find that there's only one core issue driving it: if blockchain is to truly serve financial institutions, how should it be designed?

The key word is "financial institutions," not retail investors. This means the product logic is completely different—it's not optimized for speculative atmospheres but built around regulation, auditing, and real asset transfer.

Many RWA projects on the market today are actually quite rough—just writing "asset tags" into smart contracts. Dusk is taking a completely different path. From underlying privacy design, to the construction of the settlement layer, to trading and investment applications, each layer is built around the goal of compliant finance. What are the consequences of this? Every step is slow, but each step is deep, making it almost impossible to overturn and restart.

I believe the real issue isn't about short-term market sentiment. It's: when genuine regulatory capital starts to flow in, how many systems can be directly used?