I'm taking a completely different approach to this: I won't talk about narratives, industry trends, or predictions of future explosive growth. I'm assuming I'm neither a content creator nor an individual investor; I'm putting myself in a more demanding position—let's say I'm the risk control manager of an organization, and my boss throws a question at me:
Turn a compliant asset into an on-chain tradable product, but avoid causing trouble and, more importantly, don't expose your clients and strategies to the entire network.
Given this premise, how would I review the Dusk Foundation, how would I use it, and where would it be disqualified if things weren't done well?
Let me start with a very realistic bottom line: Institutions don't lack the desire to go on-chain; they don't want to become "transparent experimental subjects" after going on-chain. Many people in the crypto world like to see transparency as an advantage, but in serious assets, transparency often means three risks: strategies being copied, actions being pieced together, and relationships being exposed. For institutions, these three risks are far more fatal than slightly higher transaction fees.
So when I look at Dusk from a risk control perspective, the first thing I focus on isn't how strong its privacy is, but whether it can make privacy a controllable operating system:
Not exposed by default
Proof when needed
Proof of no spillover
Spillover has a chain of responsibility
These four sentences sound like a slogan, but I will break them down into a set of practical drills, each step of which is strongly related to Dusk's route.
My first step would be to ask Dusk if they could make the "qualification" a verifiable on-chain state, rather than an off-chain approval result.
The biggest fear in risk control isn't "someone can't participate," but rather "unstable evidence of participation eligibility." If eligibility only exists in an off-chain database, it means every dispute has to go back to manual explanation, customer service communication, and internal approval records. This kind of thing is bound to explode on a large scale because the explanation chain is too long.
What I really want is a state where participants can prove on-chain that "I meet the participation requirements for this asset" without broadcasting their full identity information to the entire network. You can think of it as "proving you have a ticket, but not sticking your ID card on the door." If Dusk's approach can't achieve this, then no matter how much it talks about compliance, it's just procedural compliance, and I won't let it be implemented.
The second step is that I will force Dusk to answer an even dirtier question: What would you do if the rules changed?
The rules governing real-world assets change, not because issuers act arbitrarily, but because regulatory stances shift, issuance documents are updated, risk events occur, or even because certain regions suddenly become sensitive areas. Many blockchains in the cryptocurrency space have hard-coded default rules, which works for pure crypto assets but not for regulated assets.
Risk control focuses on whether rule changes have a traceable, auditable, and reproducible path.
Who submitted the change?
Who approved it?
When will the changes take effect?
How to deal with existing holders
How to implement the transition before and after the change
If a dispute arises, how can the version used at the time be proven?
This step may seem like a governance issue, but it's actually a product survival issue. If Dusk wants to serve regulated assets, it can't treat "rule changes" as operational announcements. It must embed the change path into the mechanism, at least ensuring that the original rule version can be reproduced on-chain. Otherwise, you won't be able to explain it to an auditor.
Thirdly, I will transform "privacy" from a single word into a checklist: Are you protecting money or relationships?
I'll say something that might sound harsh: Protecting only the amount of money involved doesn't prevent relationships from being exposed; you're still completely exposed.
The most sensitive aspect of regulated assets is often not how much you bought, but when you bought it, who you bought it with, whether you were market-making, whether you were engaging in wash trading, or whether you were pre-planning. If onlookers can piece together these relationships, even if the amounts are vague, the overall strategy can be deduced.
So I would ask Dusk two specific questions:
Could you make it so that transactions don't generate easily spliced behavioral profiles by default?
Could you separate "verifiability" and "observability"?
I don't demand that it hide everything like a black hole, because regulated assets aren't allowed to be black holes. What I demand is a sense of boundaries: what should be verified should be verified, and what shouldn't be observed shouldn't be observed. If Dusk is still stuck on "we have privacy technology" instead of "we have a controlled disclosure default mechanism," then I would immediately judge its value as overvalued.
The fourth step is to keep an eye on the most risky thing about Dusk: how to handle auditing so that it doesn't become a source of gossip for the entire internet.
Audits of many systems in the cryptocurrency space are essentially "everyone looking at the on-chain data themselves," which is a disaster for regulated assets. Audits of regulated assets should not be a matter of public observation; they require authorized intervention and must meet two conditions:
Those involved can see it and understand it.
Those who shouldn't see it can't see it, and can't deduce it.
This requires Dusk to consider an "audit perspective" from the design stage, rather than supplementing materials after problems arise. Risk control will ask even more pointed questions:
What is the set of evidence that an auditor needs to look at?
How evidence is opened under authorized conditions
Will it leak again after opening?
How should the chain of responsibility be drawn if a leak occurs?
Who can prove which floor the leak occurred on?
Many projects are hesitant to address these issues because doing so implies acknowledging the complexities of real-world finance. If Dusk truly wants to take this path, it must be willing to institutionalize these issues. Only if you dare to institutionalize them will I dare to allow you access to serious assets.
Step 5: I will conduct an "extreme scenario drill": how you freeze, unfreeze, and explain the situation in the event of a risk control incident.
This step is realistic and brutal. Putting real-world assets on the blockchain isn't always smooth sailing; there are also unexpected incidents.
Suspected money laundering routes
Account stolen
Judicial Assistance
Issuer information disclosure issues
Abnormal fluctuations trigger trading suspension
Conflict between asset redemption and liquidation
I would ask Dusk, do you have a set of rules that can be executed within those rules?
Note that I don't want it to "centralize and freeze everyone with one click." I want it to provide executable means within legal boundaries, and for these means to have reproducible triggering conditions, approval paths, execution scope, and post-event review capabilities.
If you can't do that, you simply can't survive in the real world.
If you do that, you must ensure it isn't abused; otherwise, you'll slide back into a closed platform.
This is the difficulty of Dusk: it's not simply about choosing one side; it's about making long-term trade-offs in a situation where neither side pleases you.
Step 6: I will treat "interoperability" as a hard requirement, not an added bonus.
If regulated assets become isolated, even the most sophisticated technology will struggle to transform them into a true market. Institutions fear being trapped, facing exit difficulties, and experiencing liquidity disruptions. If Dusk wants to absorb these funds, it must make strides in interoperability and data standards. This isn't about showcasing technology; it's about enabling assets to connect with a broader financial system.
However, I will be particularly cautious here because the stronger the interoperability, the larger the risk control scope.
The biggest risk brought by cross-system collaboration is not that the bridge is hacked, but that the boundaries of responsibility are blurred.
Who takes responsibility after the data comes in?
Who bears the responsibility for a failed settlement?
How to handle cross-domain rule conflicts
In case of a dispute, which side's rules should be used for adjudication?
Therefore, I won't blindly add points just because of interoperability. I'll see if Dusk has also addressed the "boundaries of responsibility." Only improving connectivity without addressing responsibility is digging a hole for yourself.
Step 7: I will return to a very practical product question: Is DuskTrade a "compliant entry point" rather than just a cryptocurrency trading interface?
The reason I've been spending more time monitoring Dusk lately is that it's finally moving beyond just the "blockchain concept" and starting to integrate compliance processes into its product workflow. For risk control, product workflows are crucial because the workflow itself is an integral part of risk management.
I will examine whether its process conforms to the regulatory pace.
First grant access, then proceed with operations.
First, establish regional boundaries, then open up.
First, verify your identity and qualifications, then proceed with trading and configuration.
Instead of the approach common in the cryptocurrency world of "bringing people in first, then talking about compliance"...
Of course, this also means it will be slow, troublesome, and lack short-term stimulus. But if its target is truly regulated assets, then this is the price it has to pay. Risk control won't reject you just because you're troublesome; it will only reject you if you lose control.
Step 8: I will also consider the economic factors, but not whether prices can be raised, but whether costs are controllable.
Many people think of price when they hear "economic factors," but I don't. The economic factors of risk control are:
Will proof costs render transactions unavailable?
Will compliance procedures deter users?
Is the cost of auditing too high?
Will the complexity of maintaining boundaries overwhelm the team?
Once the scale is reached, can the system operate stably?
If Dusk ultimately becomes a system where "every step incurs enormous computational and procedural costs," it will still fail. Serious assets don't lack systems; they lack systems that provide boundaries and auditing within an affordable cost. Uncontrollable costs will lead to replacement.
By now, I've essentially finalized my evaluation of Dusk:
I wouldn't judge it based on whether "narrative is popular" or not.
I would evaluate it based on whether or not it is appropriate for a risk control officer to sign off on it.
For a project to get my signature, it must meet several characteristics.
It dares to acknowledge boundaries and dares to make choices.
It can incorporate eligibility, rules, auditing, and dispute resolution into the mechanism.
It can provide an executable path in accident scenarios.
It can achieve privacy at the relationship level that is difficult to sever.
It can productize the compliance entry point instead of relying solely on announcements.
These things are neither sexy nor suitable for short video dissemination.
But that's what Dusk has to deliver if it's to be served.
I don't want to pretend I've already seen it all realized—no. Realistically speaking, Dusk is currently more like "moving towards that state," still undergoing validation. Therefore, my attitude towards it remains cautious and patient.
As long as it continues to deliver "small but real closed loops," I'm willing to keep an eye on it.
If it focuses all its energy on activities, hype, and slogans, and the closed loop (relationship between the activity and the product/service) fails to materialize, I will quickly lower my expectations.
Finally, I'll leave you with a closing remark that feels more like my own, neither sentimental nor pretentious:
Having written about Dusk for so long, what I most want to see is not for it to suddenly become popular, but for it to one day inspire a real risk control manager to say something.
This whole thing is troublesome, but I'm willing to sign it.
This comment is harder to obtain than any trending topic, and it carries more weight than any trending topic.
