2026-01-13 03:22:41

Many people see privacy and compliance as opposing forces, but in a real financial system, both must coexist.

Dusk's approach is quite interesting — it has never aimed for extreme anonymity, but instead chose the path of auditable privacy. It may seem contradictory, but it's actually very clever: protecting user information while providing regulatory authorities with necessary audit windows.

This naturally makes it suitable for compliance-focused DeFi and RWA scenarios, making it easier for institutions to accept. No need to get entangled in ideological debates; just use technical solutions to address real-world problems.

But to be honest, do you also think that privacy and compliance really have to be opposed? Or is there a way for both to coexist?

DUSK6,53%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DYORMaster

· 10h ago

The idea of auditable privacy is indeed excellent, much more reliable than projects that only shout slogans about "freedom" and "privacy." Institutions really buy into this; a little window is enough to make them feel comfortable using it. Privacy and compliance are not mutually exclusive; it depends on who understands it clearly. To put it simply, it's a technical issue, not a political one. I believe in the Dusk direction; with the current surge in RWA, what is needed is this kind of practical solution.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoGoldmine

· 10h ago

I agree with this approach. The direction of auditable privacy indeed offers a higher ROI compared to extreme anonymity, as institutional-level funds are the main players. From a technical perspective, Dusk's dual-track design lowers the entry barrier, and RWA on-chain inherently requires compliance channels, directly addressing the pain points. Privacy and compliance are not fundamentally contradictory; it’s just a matter of finding that critical point. Bitcoin's transparent ledger actually makes on-chain data traceable and more compliant.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropGrandpa

· 10h ago

The idea of auditable privacy really hits the pain point, much more than those projects that boast absolute privacy. If I had to choose, privacy compliance doesn't have to be opposed at all. The problem is that many people treat it as an ideological battle. Dusk's approach is basically political correctness combined with technical feasibility. The key is whether institutions dare to adopt it. coexistence? It must coexist. Otherwise, how can it be applied on a large scale? Playing in the basement is pointless. It's really just about finding that balance point; it's not as complicated as it seems. The topic is a bit idealistic... The real challenge is how regulators will cooperate in practical implementation. I hadn't thought about the concept of auditable privacy before; it is indeed a bit extreme. This is the true path Web3 should take, not a dead end of all-or-nothing. Regulatory-compliant DeFi is now the trend. Projects that see this early can survive a bit longer. Sure, Dusk's approach is quite pragmatic, not just empty talk. Privacy and compliance can coexist; it all depends on how it's designed. This analysis is thorough, but the implementation still depends on whether exchanges are willing to integrate.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOrektGuy

· 10h ago

The idea of auditable privacy is indeed brilliant, much smarter than those projects that stubbornly pursue extreme anonymity. Real large-capital investments don't care about your privacy at all; they only care about compliance. Dusk has figured out the game rules. In fact, privacy and compliance are not inherently opposed; many projects just use them as excuses.

View OriginalReply0

airdrop_whisperer

· 10h ago

Haha, finally someone explained it clearly. Previously, many people insisted on making these two things opponents, but it's really just a lack of imagination. The idea of Dusk is indeed feasible, and while audited privacy sounds a bit tricky, it becomes very smooth when applied to real-world scenarios.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeBeggar

· 10h ago

Alright, the idea behind Dusk really hits the point, but honestly, it's still about trying to please both sides. Now, institutional entry must have an audit window; without that, it's basically impossible to play. Full privacy push is useless. The smart thing about Dusk is that it doesn't follow the all-or-nothing approach; it uses technology to balance this issue. Otherwise, look at those extremely anonymous projects—how many are still doing well? Regulatory pressure is too high. It's better to be more realistic: if privacy is well-managed and combined with audits, it’s actually easier to gain traction in RWA. Ultimately, auditable privacy is about "I protect you, but accept inspection when necessary." This seems to be the future norm for finance.

View OriginalReply0

degenwhisperer

· 10h ago

This approach is indeed brilliant, much smarter than those mouthy anonymousists. To put it simply, they want both the fish and the bear's paw; Dusk has found the balance point. Institutional entry requires this; without it, you can't play at all.

View OriginalReply0