Today I understand Dusk as "a silent risk control department", and suddenly it makes sense. The default rule for most chains is: all data is public, and explanations come after something goes wrong. The rules of @dusk_foundation are more like traditional finance: first, draw the risk boundaries, and then allow trading within those boundaries.
The core of it is actually "verifiable privacy": transaction details can be kept confidential, but the system can still prove that the rules are followed, assets have not been double spent, and participants meet compliance requirements. In other words, it's not about helping people evade rules, but about turning rules into verifiable mathematical facts on the chain. This direction may sound boring, but it is precisely the prerequisite for usability in the securities/RWA scenario.
So I see $DUSK never taking "community heat" as an indicator. What should really be focused on is: whether compliant trading processes have been made into standardized components; whether the toolchain helps developers avoid pitfalls; and whether there has emerged a batch of real transaction/asset records that can be externally verified. As long as these things gradually appear, Dusk can be considered as building a system, rather than just a concept.