It's not theoretical. It's practical. Reports. Reviews. Accountability. Most blockchain chains treat these issues as nuisances rather than non-negotiable requirements. This is acceptable if you're experimenting. But it's unacceptable if you're aiming for real financial use.
This is where the Dusk Foundation stands out to me.
It doesn't seem like a project trying to escape regulation. Rather, it appears to be a project that came early and got the groundwork right. Privacy isn't treated as "hiding everything forever." Instead, it's treated as control—about who can see what, when, and why.
This distinction carries more weight than people acknowledge.
In real finance, transparency is not publicly default. It is conditional. Information is shared with the appropriate parties at the right time. Dusk seems designed around this reality rather than confronting it.
Most chains impose a binary choice. Everything is public or everything is hidden. And that is not how institutions operate. They live in the middle, where confidentiality and auditability must coexist without breaking trust.
Standardized design also makes more sense when you think about different jurisdictions and rule systems. A fixed structure does not hold up for long in this environment. Flexibility is not an added feature, but a necessity.
I have seen many projects labeled "for enterprises" collapse as soon as compliance questions arise. Not because the technology was bad, but because it was never designed to operate within these constraints from the outset.
This does not seem like the same mistake.
It seems like an infrastructure built with the understanding that finance does not tolerate approximation, and that trust is not something you can add later.
Most users will never talk about this layer. They will only interact with systems that do not create congestion where congestion is the norm.
And this is often an indicator that the design is working.
