Privacy public chain technology stacks up one after another, but why do users ultimately leave? Honestly, it all comes down to one thing—an attractive white paper can't fix a poor wallet experience.

Projects like Dusk, based on privacy assets and notes mechanisms, can only survive if the wallet interaction is well-designed. No matter how beautiful the paper is, it’s useless if: Is creating an account complicated with backup procedures? Can users clearly see fees and confirmation times when transferring? When initiating a privacy transfer, is it a one-time success or repeated failures? If it fails, can they understand why?

The most painful issue is compliance. When you need to present verifiable proof to institutions or auditors, you should generate it with one click, not make users tinker in the command line until midnight. This may seem small, but it directly impacts institutional users' decision-making.

Here's a straightforward evaluation standard: Can a complete novice who has never touched this platform set up a process in 10 minutes—"create wallet → receive or transfer assets → view balance change → initiate another interaction"—without any pitfalls? If yes, $DUSK can upgrade from a niche technical chain to real infrastructure; if not, even the most advanced privacy solutions are just geek toys.

Share your thoughts—what experience on-chain do you care about most? Stable transfers, privacy-first, or optional compliance disclosures?