When you’re moving money or sensitive data under a regulatory microscope, the obvious rush toward speed always bumps into a harder truth: regulators, institutions, and end-users rarely care first about how fast something settles. They care about certainty—that the thing actually happened, that it’s auditable, that it won’t blow up when someone asks for proof in six months. That’s why so many “fast” solutions feel awkward. They chase throughput or low latency without asking whether the entities relying on them are comfortable with the failure modes, the recourse paths, the legal defensibility.
This tension exists because speed is easy to market and hard to govern. A system can push thousands of transactions per second, but if one goes sideways or conflicts with a compliance rule, the entire institution is stuck reconciling, explaining, or litigating. Most attempts to bolt on compliance after the fact—because speed came first—look clumsy in real operations.
So if @Dusk ’s approach really privileges trust—meaning observable, verifiable, aligned with existing legal constructs—then it might actually reduce friction where it matters. But it will only matter if the entities using it can integrate it into their compliance and settlement workflows without adding new unknowns. Otherwise, “trust” stays a slogan, and real world users will default back to the slow, familiar rails.