I think the market misprices what “regulated privacy” really means on @Dusk compliance is not a static rulebook, it’s a contested oracle that changes under political and legal ambiguity. The moment Dusk needs to enforce “updated policy” at the base layer, the chain has to pick a poison. Either a privileged policy feed signs what the current rules are, which makes censorship quiet and reversible by whoever holds that key, or policy becomes consensus-critical through governance, which makes disagreement visible and can degrade liveness when validators refuse the same update. That trade-off is structural, not philosophical. If Dusk can truly apply policy updates deterministically with no privileged signer and no policy-driven liveness hits, then this thesis is wrong. But if you ever see emergency policy pushes, opaque rule changes, or validator splits around “compliance versions,” then the chain’s real security boundary is not cryptography. It’s who controls the compliance oracle. Implication: you should judge Dusk less by privacy claims and more by whether policy updates are transparent, contestable, and unable to silently rewrite transaction rights. $DUSK #dusk

DUSK

--

--