The question that keeps coming up for me is simple and uncomfortable: why does doing normal, compliant financial activity still feel like you’re asking for special permission not to be fully exposed?
A bank doesn’t broadcast its intraday liquidity. A fund doesn’t publish positions in real time. A regulator doesn’t need to see everything, everywhere, all at once. Traditional finance is built around controlled disclosure because markets react to information, not intentions. Visibility changes behavior. That is not a flaw. It is a constraint learned the hard way.
Most blockchain systems ignore this. They start from full transparency and try to claw privacy back later through exceptions. Private pools. Special contracts. Off-chain coordination. Each workaround technically “solves” the issue while making the system harder to operate, govern, and explain. Compliance becomes procedural instead of structural.
This is why privacy by design matters. Not as secrecy, but as discipline. Decide upfront who needs to see what, under which conditions, and make that verifiable without constant human intervention. Auditability does not require permanent exposure. It requires correctness and accountability.
That framing is where @Dusk Network fits. Not as a promise of disruption, but as infrastructure shaped by regulated reality. It assumes institutions will not adapt to systems that punish discretion.
Who would use this? Issuers, settlement platforms, and compliant DeFi builders already tired of exceptions. Why might it work? Because it aligns with how finance actually behaves. What would make it fail? Complexity, regulatory mismatch, or assuming trust emerges automatically. It never does.
@Dusk