Many people think of privacy chains as completely anonymous, 100% black boxes. In fact, what DUSK wants to do is much more complex.
Let's start with a basic fact: the financial world has never operated by revealing all its cards. You look at the stock market, bond market, foreign exchange market—what's transparent are the trading rules, but participants' strategies, positions, and business secrets? Those must be kept confidential. When finance talks about transparency, it’s always these layers: trading rules must be known to everyone; trading results must be verifiable; information disclosures must comply with regulations—nothing more.
Fully open everything is not fair; it actually forces small investors to become transparent, allowing large funds and information advantages to freely harvest.
DUSK’s approach is to bring this set of financial common sense onto the blockchain. It’s not about pursuing mystical black boxes, nor about making the entire network become 007. Instead: areas that need verification are absolutely verifiable; areas that need to be hidden can be hidden. Achieving both at the same time is what we call an "implementable balance."
Why is this difficult? Because you need to handle several things simultaneously: privacy protection must prevent tracking and safeguard trade secrets; compliance space must be reserved for auditors; trading experience must be smooth and without delays; on-chain settlement must be highly deterministic and deliverable. It’s not just adding a privacy function; it’s a complete overhaul of the entire underlying system—from consensus to settlement—across the whole chain.
That’s also why projects like DUSK aren’t as flashy as hype coins. They are foundational engineering—boring, unsexy, unlikely to trend on hot searches. But foundations determine whether a building can be constructed. When institutional finance truly moves on-chain, and compliance parties genuinely participate, this system that balances privacy and verifiability will become indispensable. The value of early involvement in something that will be needed sooner or later is right there.
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.
12 Likes
Reward
12
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MoonlightGamer
· 9h ago
The analogy of foundation engineering is brilliant; it just means no one cares.
View OriginalReply0
MEVSandwichMaker
· 9h ago
Exactly right, foundation engineering is so dull but necessary
View OriginalReply0
MidnightTrader
· 9h ago
Foundation engineering is indeed not sexy, but just think about the day the institution really comes in.
View OriginalReply0
SilentAlpha
· 9h ago
Exactly right, that's the point
Finally, someone explained it thoroughly. Privacy chains ≠ black boxes, these two should not be confused
Finance has always been played this way. What's wrong with bringing the rules onto the chain?
Foundation engineering may not get hot searches, but it's indeed a necessity
Only institutions dare to get involved with this stuff now. It still feels a bit early to enter at this stage
View OriginalReply0
PriceOracleFairy
· 9h ago
ngl this privacy-verification balance thing hits different... most people just think it's binary but the infrastructure grind is where real value gets locked in 📊
Many people think of privacy chains as completely anonymous, 100% black boxes. In fact, what DUSK wants to do is much more complex.
Let's start with a basic fact: the financial world has never operated by revealing all its cards. You look at the stock market, bond market, foreign exchange market—what's transparent are the trading rules, but participants' strategies, positions, and business secrets? Those must be kept confidential. When finance talks about transparency, it’s always these layers: trading rules must be known to everyone; trading results must be verifiable; information disclosures must comply with regulations—nothing more.
Fully open everything is not fair; it actually forces small investors to become transparent, allowing large funds and information advantages to freely harvest.
DUSK’s approach is to bring this set of financial common sense onto the blockchain. It’s not about pursuing mystical black boxes, nor about making the entire network become 007. Instead: areas that need verification are absolutely verifiable; areas that need to be hidden can be hidden. Achieving both at the same time is what we call an "implementable balance."
Why is this difficult? Because you need to handle several things simultaneously: privacy protection must prevent tracking and safeguard trade secrets; compliance space must be reserved for auditors; trading experience must be smooth and without delays; on-chain settlement must be highly deterministic and deliverable. It’s not just adding a privacy function; it’s a complete overhaul of the entire underlying system—from consensus to settlement—across the whole chain.
That’s also why projects like DUSK aren’t as flashy as hype coins. They are foundational engineering—boring, unsexy, unlikely to trend on hot searches. But foundations determine whether a building can be constructed. When institutional finance truly moves on-chain, and compliance parties genuinely participate, this system that balances privacy and verifiability will become indispensable. The value of early involvement in something that will be needed sooner or later is right there.