Why do institutions still hesitate to use public blockchains?
It’s not speed. It’s not cost. It’s trust, privacy, and compliance.
Most blockchains were designed for open participation, not regulated capital. Every transaction is visible, every smart contract is exposed, and compliance is usually added as an afterthought. That works for experimentation, but it breaks down when real financial activity enters the picture.
This is the core problem Dusk is trying to solve.
From the beginning, Dusk was built for regulated financial use, not general consumer apps. Its focus is clear: enable smart contracts and on-chain settlement that preserve confidentiality while remaining auditable and compliant. That combination is rare in Web3, yet mandatory in real markets.
What makes Dusk different is how this is handled at the protocol level. Instead of forcing developers or institutions to choose between privacy and regulation, Dusk integrates both directly into its infrastructure. Transactions can remain private by default, while still allowing authorized verification when required.
This matters in real usage. Financial institutions cannot expose sensitive transaction data publicly. At the same time, regulators cannot operate in black boxes. Dusk addresses both needs without compromising either side.
I’ve noticed that most blockchains try to attract attention first and solve compliance later. Dusk took the opposite path. It built the foundation quietly, knowing that real adoption comes from reliability, not noise.
If Web3 is serious about capital markets, then infrastructure like Dusk isn’t optional.
It’s necessary.
Do you think privacy and compliance can coexist On-Chain or must one always be sacrificed?
