I have been thinking about a question recently:
If it wasn't me writing an article, but instead I really had to nod in a meeting and put a type of regulated asset on a certain chain, what would be the hardest decision for me?
It's not about technology selection.
It's not about TPS.
It's not even about how strong the privacy is.
Instead, it's about: once something goes wrong, can I be responsible for this decision?
Once this question came up, my understanding of the Dusk Foundation was completely different from before.
In the crypto space, many projects aim to 'lower the barriers to entry,' while Dusk does the opposite by lowering decision-making risks. These two things may seem similar, but they are actually opposing.
Lowering the entry barrier is to allow more people to come in.
Lowering decision-making risks is to enable those who truly need to be responsible to dare to nod.
The regulation of assets on-chain is precisely a field where 'once you make a mistake, everyone will be held accountable.'
Why do I say that the difficulty of Dusk lies here? Because in the real world, the person who truly decides whether to adopt a system is almost never the one who 'sees potential,' but rather the one who has to explain afterward 'why it was chosen in the first place.'
This person usually has three innate fears, and Dusk's route happens to be positioned at the intersection of these three fears.
The first fear: being backfired by excessive transparency.
Many people like to say that the advantage of blockchain is transparency, but in the context of regulated assets, transparency is often a source of risk.
Transparency means that behaviors can be pieced together.
Transparency means that strategies can be inferred.
Transparency means that once market or public sentiment rises, you cannot explain 'this is normal business behavior.'
From the decision-maker's position, what I fear most is not that others don't understand, but that others 'think they understand.'
The value of Dusk lies in the fact that it doesn't simply hide information, but tries to separate 'verifiable' from 'observable.'
You can prove that the system is compliant, but you do not need to involve everyone in the interpretation.
This matter is not sensitive to ordinary users but is extremely sensitive to decision-makers. Because once a business is misunderstood, the cost of explanation will quickly exceed the value of the system itself.
The second fear: rules cannot be reproduced.
In the real world, the deadliest thing is not violating rules, but 'being unable to explain why it was done at that time.'
Many on-chain system problems do not arise from non-compliance, but from their compliance logic being non-reproducible.
Rules exist in documents.
Judgment exists in human processes.
The environment at that time exists in memory.
Once a dispute arises, you'll find: there is no path that can be completely reproduced by a third party.
From this perspective, Dusk repeatedly emphasizes writing constraints into the system rather than into the process, which is actually helping decision-makers do one thing:
Turning 'why this behavior was allowed at that time' from an explanatory question into a judgment question.
Judgment questions can be reproduced, but explanatory questions can never be fully explained.
The third fear: uncontrolled boundaries.
Many failed attempts are not due to wrong direction, but because the boundaries are gradually eroded under pressure.
It initially started as a 'special case.'
Later it became 'let's run first and talk later.'
In the end, it turns into 'we actually aren't that strict.'
From the decision-maker's position, this is the most dangerous signal. Because it means you are not choosing a system but a group of people whose boundaries can change at any time.
Dusk's route has placed itself in an ungrateful position from the very beginning:
It cannot be infinitely open.
It cannot be infinitely transparent.
It also cannot be infinitely flexible.
These 'cannots' are precisely the prerequisites for reducing decision-making risks.
The more you want to serve regulated assets, the less you can give people the feeling that 'this system might suddenly change one day.'
So when I look at the way DuskTrade is advancing from this perspective, seeing its deliberate choice of waitlist, emphasizing regional and qualification boundaries, I can better understand this rhythm.
This is not about being slow, but about being controllable.
Not to appear professional, but to clarify the chain of responsibility.
You may not like this rhythm, but you must admit: this is a rhythm that resembles the logic of real financial decision-making.
My current judgment on Dusk is no longer 'does it have a chance to become a hot project,' but has changed to a more realistic question:
If one day, a person who truly needs to be responsible for the assets stands in front of the selection list, will they directly cross out Dusk?
Will it be because
Too transparent.
Too difficult to explain.
The boundaries are too vague.
Rules rely too much on human input.
If these issues cannot be negated, Dusk cannot enter that world.
What it is doing now is at least positively addressing these fears, rather than avoiding them.
This is also why I keep emphasizing one sentence:
Dusk is not lowering the cost of use; it is lowering the 'psychological cost of decision-making.'
This cost is imperceptible to ordinary users, but once you stand in that position, you'll find it more important than transaction fees, speed, or even expected returns.
Writing to this point, I have become calmer instead.
Not because I am more certain it will succeed, but because I am clearer about what it is actually fighting against.
It is not competing with other public chains.
It is competing with those moments in the real world where 'decisions cannot be made.'
And this competition has never been lively.
The reason I will continue to keep an eye on Dusk is very simple:
Not because it performs well now, but because it is about whether it continuously reduces the risk of 'the moment of decision.'
If it can achieve this, it will sooner or later be needed.
If it can't achieve this, it will forever remain in the category of 'the concept is correct' projects.
This is the most real and closest record of my judgment regarding the project so far.
