I specifically thought of an 'counterintuitive' point today: Dusk's real moat may not be zero-knowledge proofs themselves, but rather its willingness to make zero-knowledge proofs a default cost. Many chains say 'we also support privacy', but usually as optional features or plugins; users can choose not to use them, and the ecosystem won’t grow around it. @dusk_foundation is more like treating privacy execution as a foundation — transactions from the very beginning run according to the rules of 'information layering': details can remain undisclosed, but the system must be able to verify that you haven't cheated or violated rules, and can perform selective disclosure when necessary. This design may not sound sexy, but it's very financial: what institutions care about most is 'process not exposed, results provable'. So my judgment on $DUSK has always been very restrained: it is not suitable for telling stories based on emotions but rather for building credibility through repeated deliveries. If later DuskEVM and related transaction modules can truly empower developers to write effectively and enable project parties to deploy successfully, and then a batch of verifiable compliant assets/transaction data emerges, only then can it be considered to have moved from concept to system. Otherwise, no matter how good the design is, it will still be treated as a paper by the market. #Dusk $DUSK @Dusk