The more i look at why blockchain adoption slows down in serious environments, the less it feels like a pure tech issue to me.
It usually comes back to trust.
Not trust between users, but trust between systems, institutions, and regulators. Most blockchains swing to one extreme or the other. They either expose too much or hide too much. Once real money and real responsibility are involved, neither approach really works.
That is why Dusk Foundation keeps feeling practical to me instead of theoretical.
It does not assume transparency fixes everything, and it does not assume secrecy does either. The design feels grounded in the idea that privacy and verification have to exist together, even if that is uncomfortable. Some information stays confidential. Other information needs to be provable. Not publicly and not all the time, but when it actually matters.
That is already how finance works in the real world, even if crypto does not always like to admit it.
I have seen plenty of projects talk about institutional adoption while completely avoiding basic questions around audits disclosures and legal responsibility. Those questions do not disappear just because the technology is new.
Dusk does not feel like it is trying to dodge them.
The modular approach also starts to make more sense the longer i think about it. Different assets come with different rules. Different jurisdictions expect different things. One rigid model usually cracks under that kind of complexity.
This is not the kind of infrastructure people get excited about on day one. It starts to matter when systems scale and mistakes stop being theoretical.
Most users will never think about this layer. They will just use systems that do not create friction where friction usually shows up.
And in finance, that is often the clearest sign that something was designed with reality in mind.
