An interesting phenomenon worth discussing: the seemingly unrelated directions of privacy compliance and RWA (Real-World Asset Tokenization) are actually capable of producing a “chemical reaction” at a certain point, and among the most prominent names doing this well, Dusk is often mentioned. I’ve looked at on-chain data and market trends, and the price of DUSK isn’t very dramatic; instead, volatility has narrowed, and trading volume is quietly increasing—this often indicates that funds are quietly positioning, which can’t be simply explained by retail speculation.

Why are institutions willing to spend money? Frankly, institutions care about “whether they can do things well,” not about who can tell the most compelling stories. Compliance is becoming increasingly strict, with MiCA and various regulators tightening controls, but the demand for privacy hasn’t disappeared. Most projects either give up on privacy or exploit regulatory loopholes, ending up with neither approach being ideal. Dusk’s highlight is integrating compliance directly into the technical path: privacy isn’t a black box but a “controlled disclosure” capability; compliance isn’t an after-the-fact label but a design feature within the protocol—this makes traditional institutions willing to try, capable of using, and able to prove.

Taking its example with Cordial’s zero-trust custody: asset control rights are technically always held by the user; the custodian can only operate within the authorized scope, and overstepping is nearly impossible. This design satisfies both custody and audit requirements while minimizing the risk of misappropriation, so it’s not surprising that licensed exchanges like NPEX are willing to pilot it first.

@DuskFoundation $DUSK #Dusk