2026-01-14 10:27:54

Many people frown when they see projects like Dusk: "Privacy protection and compliance regulation? Isn't that just shooting yourself in the foot?" This skepticism sounds reasonable but is only half right.

Having been in the crypto community for too long, it's easy to be trapped in a mindset—either believing that only a complete revolution counts as "revolution," or that total compromise is the only way. But the reality of the financial system is always gray; it's never black and white.

What Dusk aims to solve is actually a problem that the entire industry has been avoiding: how to keep a secret door for transactions in the sunlight. This door isn't meant for illicit activities; precisely, it's designed for the mainstream players who care most about "procedural justice." Imagine how traditional institutions handle compliance today—massive databases cobbled together, internal permissions tangled, chaos during audits. Not only is this inefficient, but it also forces a binary choice between "full disclosure" and "complete concealment."

Dusk's zero-knowledge proof approach essentially opens up a third way. In simple terms: I prove to you that I am doing what I should, and as for what I shouldn't see? I don't even have the right to see it myself. It sounds rebellious, but it's not about confrontation—it's a workaround. Instead of shouting to dismantle the old banking system, it cleverly hands over a key. The rules like KYC and AML? No need to access your underlying data; I can still verify compliance. Cross-institution reconciliation issues? Generate a proof, and no one can deny it.

The entry point isn't "revolution," but "penetration"—sneaking into the gaps where traditional tech is overwhelmed yet afraid to use typical encryption schemes.

The real challenge lies here. The complex, convoluted ideas of institutional clients are far more complicated than code. How to convince them that this solution can both protect privacy and truly be compliant—without just sounding sophisticated—is the real hurdle Dusk needs to overcome.

DUSK-1,37%

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.

5 Likes

Reward
5
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-e19e9c10

· 6h ago

Damn, I never thought about this angle—using zero-knowledge proofs as a lubricant? Institutions are all about this approach: they want privacy and audit proofs. Dusk providing a third way is indeed brilliant. But to be honest, can trust issues really be shattered by mathematical proofs... How long will it take to educate the institutions to accept this? This approach is much smarter than "smashing everything." Slow infiltration is the way to go. Sigh, I'm just worried that regulatory authorities will kill it off again, and all efforts will be in vain. Zero-knowledge proofs are key to practical implementation; otherwise, no matter how fancy the hype, it's all pointless.

View OriginalReply0

TokenUnlocker

· 6h ago

Thinking it over calmly, the logic of zero-knowledge proofs is indeed brilliant, essentially extending an olive branch of "I understand you" to traditional finance. --- I really respect Dusk's approach; it's not about overthrow but infiltration, quite clever. --- The real issue lies in trust—will institutions really buy into this? --- This is the true art of compromise: neither fully compromising nor completely revolutionary. --- So basically, it's about packaging compliance; privacy is just an added bonus. --- I've heard a lot about zero-knowledge proofs, but real-world implementation is the game-changer. --- The word "infiltration" is used perfectly; it feels more realistic than "revolution." --- The hard part is convincing institutions—that's the real test. --- Instead of crashing the banking system, giving them the keys—this approach is indeed sophisticated.

View OriginalReply0

StrawberryIce

· 6h ago

I think this is the right direction. Don't just randomly attack the system; institutions won't buy into that. I respect Dusk's logic. Honestly, we still need to learn how to play with traditional finance, not oppose it. Zero-knowledge proofs are really impressive; balancing privacy and compliance is the way to practical application. Trust issues on the institutional side are indeed difficult; who would believe just by talking about concepts? This approach is much more realistic than those projects that keep shouting about overthrowing everything—it's steady. Compliance and privacy are not mutually exclusive; once you see through it, it's simple. If Dusk can truly develop this, the old-fashioned traditional finance systems will have to shake. Penetration strategies are actually more effective than hard resistance; projects that understand how to play politics can survive. This is what being pragmatic means—not everything needs to be revolutionary.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropSweaterFan

· 6h ago

Damn, this angle is indeed fresh, I've never thought about it this way before. That group of institutions are just like that—talk about compliance on the surface, but secretly afraid that all their data will be exposed. Zero-knowledge proofs are basically "I prove I’m not cheating you, but don’t expect to see my secrets," it’s truly a skill. It sounds easy, but convincing those old-school traditional finance folks to believe in this? Much harder than writing beautiful code. This is the real tough nut for Dusk to crack, technology is actually the easy part.

View OriginalReply0

GmGmNoGn

· 6h ago

This logic is actually pretty good, but will institutions really buy in? It still feels like nitpicking. Zero-knowledge proofs sound impressive, but how does it actually land? The bank folks don't care how elegant your technology is; they just want fewer hassles. They want privacy and compliance at the same time—sounds logical, right? But why hasn't it exploded yet? Basically, it's like dancing on a tightrope, trying to please institutions while fooling the community. I actually favor this approach; it's much more reliable than those pure disruptors. The difficulty with Dusk isn't the technology; it's the trust cost. Upgrading systems for institutions is too expensive. So the core question is: can it save money? Can it reduce risks? Everything else is just superficial.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomMiner

· 6h ago

This logic is indeed absolute; it's either revolution or death. Black-and-white thinking really needs to change. The brilliance of zero-knowledge proofs lies in their ability to give traditional institutions a stepping stone without requiring them to overhaul their old database systems—smart. But honestly, to get the old banking folks to truly accept this technology... it still depends on real-world implementation, theory alone isn't enough. The Dusk approach is interesting, but I think the biggest hurdle is the psychological readiness on the institution side. Privacy compliance isn't a trade-off between fish and bear paws; it all depends on who can find the right balance point. Zero-knowledge proofs indeed take a detour to breakthrough; instead of direct confrontation, they infiltrate. I like this approach. It sounds sophisticated, but whether it's truly usable is another matter. We have to wait for real institutional cases to be sure. The gray area of financial reality is much more reliable than those fanatical all-or-nothing ideas.

View OriginalReply0