We have all been hijacked by the banner of "First Principles." In the blockchain community, this is often translated as: decentralization above all, anonymity as a fundamental right, code is law, permissionless is justice. I used to be a die-hard fan of this logic.

But the more I look into the DUSK project, the more I realize one thing — it is systematically and consciously diverging from these "fundamentalist first principles" to create an ecosystem that I see as more complex and more "anti-crypto traditional."

This is not a technical compromise but a philosophical reversal. It throws out a question that no one dares to answer directly: if absolute, indiscriminate decentralization and anonymity become the biggest obstacles to large-scale asset hosting and mainstream societal acceptance, should we redefine "First Principles"?

**From "Permissionless" to "Permission = Value"**

Traditional public chains tout "anyone, anytime, can join without review" as their selling point. DUSK goes against the grain — turning "permission" into a core mechanism. KYC modules are not optional features but prerequisites for many core financial protocols. This sounds "less decentralized."

But what does the real data show? It is precisely this "permission" mechanism that provides a clear legal responsible entity for on-chain assets. A bond token issued by a verified institution has legal recourse; whereas one issued by an anonymous address is at best a speculative certificate. The former can attract traditional assets worth trillions of dollars, while the latter can only entertain within the community.

DUSK flips "permission" from a burden into a "trust foundation," thereby unlocking an asset scale several orders of magnitude larger than the native crypto market.