2026-01-20 05:28:26

Many crypto traders only focus on candlestick charts but overlook a harsh reality—the projects that can truly attract large capital must first pass the compliance hurdle. Why do traditional financial institutions and brokerages hesitate to touch public blockchains? Simply put, they are worried that the opaque operations could trigger regulatory risks.

Interestingly, some projects have already thought of a breakthrough point. Take Dusk, for example. Its approach is quite clear: using zero-knowledge proof privacy technology to protect business secrets and transaction privacy while leaving an audit channel for regulators. This way, institutions can go on-chain without worries—sensitive data can be hidden, and KYC/AML audits can be automatically completed when needed.

This "built-in compliance design" underlying architecture happens to be what institutional-grade financial infrastructure requires. Whether it's on-chain RWA assets, STO token issuance, or compliant DeFi ecosystems, they all need infrastructure that protects privacy while allowing oversight. Instead of chasing hot trends, it's better to look for long-term tracks that fundamentally solve institutional pain points. This is the correct way to approach medium- and long-term deployment.

DUSK4,89%

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

OfflineNewbie

· 53m ago

Oh, you're right. Institutions do need compliance for entry... But can we really trust zero-knowledge proofs? Institutions have already gone on-chain long ago; the key is having real-world scenarios with actual assets... Privacy audit solutions like Dusk sound promising, but will big institutions really overhaul their systems for this? It all comes down to how they make money. Compliance is a threshold, but once real assets are involved, regulatory uncertainty is the biggest pitfall. Instead of fixating on technical terms like ZK proofs, it's better to see if any actual institutions are using them... It's too easy to talk without action.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityNinja

· 18h ago

Compliance has long been handled this way; retail investors are still analyzing candlestick charts, while institutions have already adopted this approach.

View OriginalReply0

ForkPrince

· 18h ago

Oh, finally someone has spoken out. Compliance is the real moat. This zero-knowledge proof logic is indeed brilliant, satisfying institutional audit requirements while protecting privacy. Genius. Institutional funds rely on this approach; no matter how good the black box operation looks, it's useless. I hadn't paid much attention to Dusk's approach before, but it truly captures the essence of traditional finance. However, to be honest, how many projects can really achieve proper compliance? Let's wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

LuckyBearDrawer

· 18h ago

Ah, finally someone said it. Compliance is really unavoidable. Why don't institutions touch it? Basically, it's fear of regulation; they need something that can be audited. I understand the logic behind Dusk's zero-knowledge proof system. Privacy and transparency can be achieved simultaneously, which really hits the pain point. Rather than constantly watching those flashy concepts in the crypto world, it's better to focus on long-term projects rooted in infrastructure. This is what big funds truly want—it's not about narratives or stories. The track that genuinely addresses institutional-level needs might be the next main focus.

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_therapy

· 18h ago

Wake up, big institutional funds really only care about this stuff Isn't this just putting a black box behind glass? The zero-knowledge proof set sounds nice, but frankly, it's all about what each party needs Chasing hot topics is not as good as finding a long-term track, I agree with that... but how many can really cash in?

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingersFOMO

· 18h ago

Compliance is really underestimated; retail investors are still chasing price swings, while institutions have long required access control cards. How could institutions possibly go onto a black-box chain? The logic makes sense. Zero-knowledge proofs are truly ingenious, balancing privacy and auditability, much more reliable than those self-deceiving projects. Instead of betting on the next hundredfold coin, it's better to bet on infrastructure that can survive for ten years. I need to study Dusk's approach; it doesn't seem like a typical money-grabbing scheme.

View OriginalReply0

SneakyFlashloan

· 18h ago

Alright, you're right, but most retail investors still only look at ups and downs and don't listen at all. Dusk's approach to the audit channel is indeed interesting, but whether it can be implemented depends on whether regulatory authorities buy in. Institutional entry must be compliant, that's the trend, but by the time big funds actually come in, they might have already been exploited by those who preemptively ambushed. Long-term compliant infrastructure is definitely a gold mine, but it's just unknown how many years it will take to see results. RWA on-chain sounds high-end, but the real issue is liquidity; if it's compliant but no one uses it, it's pointless. Can privacy and supervision truly be balanced? I have my doubts. Instead of waiting for Dusk, it's better to look for projects that have already been quietly approached by institutions; information advantage is where the money is. Zero-knowledge proofs sound impressive, but how many people truly understand what they can do? Talking about mid-to-long-term layout, but who can really withstand mid-term slashes? Most are just chasing highs and killing dips. Compliance is indeed a moat, but how long can this moat protect?

View OriginalReply0