The long-standing conflict between blockchain and regulatory authorities has existed for a while—project teams want recognition and resource support, but also worry about being caught in overly restrictive regulations that could compromise decentralization and flexibility. A project has found an interesting solution to this problem, not through confrontation or compromise, but by redefining the trust model between both parties using technical means.
From a regulatory perspective, their core concern is quite simple: ensure financial stability and prevent risks. The Hedger technology launched by the Dusk project addresses this pain point using zero-knowledge proofs. In simple terms, it can generate a "sealed proof"—demonstrating that all transactions comply with the rules, while keeping the specific details confidential from the outside world. It's like submitting a compliance certificate generated by AI that cannot be forged, instead of detailed invoices to tax authorities. Regulatory agencies can rest assured upon seeing this proof, satisfying compliance requirements without having to sift through massive transaction records.
From the user side, the demand is equally urgent. Who wants their account balances and transaction details to be watched by the entire world on the blockchain? Traditional finance offers account privacy protections, but blockchain often presents a "transparent" level that can be uncomfortable. The cleverness of Hedger lies in providing "controllable privacy"—during normal operations, transaction details are fully hidden; when necessary (such as for law enforcement or legal requirements), specific transactions can be selectively disclosed to designated agencies. This approach protects users' business secrets while providing regulators with the necessary transparency.
The brilliance of this solution is that it doesn't choose sides between regulation and freedom but uses technology to find a third way. It allows both sides to get what they want while sacrificing what is unnecessary. This approach may offer some valuable lessons for the entire industry.
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.
12 Likes
Reward
12
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LiquidatedTwice
· 11h ago
Hmm... Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed clever, but can we really trust them when it comes to enforcement?
---
It feels like just giving regulatory authorities a "seems compliant" reason; no one really knows what the actual transactions look like.
---
The term "controllable privacy" sounds a bit awkward; privacy is either there or not—there's no in-between.
---
Dusk's move actually solves a long-standing problem, but we need to ask if projects are really using it.
---
Honestly, it's still about wanting to have both fish and bear paws—can this really be achieved?
---
I like zero-knowledge proofs, but the key question is whether law enforcement really trusts this approach, haha.
---
Thinking back to those so-called "compliant" projects before... will this time be any different?
---
Anyway, I prefer to keep my account data hidden rather than risk exposing it.
---
A ready-made technical repackage—whether it's a breakthrough or just another wave of marketing, I don't know.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseMigrant
· 11h ago
Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed quite interesting, but can they really be implemented in practice?
View OriginalReply0
LoneValidator
· 12h ago
Zero-knowledge proofs are truly amazing; they can help regulators sleep soundly while also protecting user privacy.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketMonk
· 12h ago
Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed quite interesting; finally, regulation and privacy can shake hands?
View OriginalReply0
InscriptionGriller
· 12h ago
Oh no, it's the zero-knowledge proof system again. It sounds great in theory, but can it really be implemented?
Sealed proofs for regulators and privacy for users—aren't they just trying to please both sides? I have to ask—who guarantees that these AI-generated proofs won't be secretly altered?
Honestly, it's just the old scam of a pyramid scheme with a new technical name pretending to be innovative. Do the bagholders believe it?
Trust me, these "third way" projects always end in a death spiral. Just wait and see.
If you really want to solve regulatory issues, you need real on-chain evidence. Zero-knowledge proofs? I think it's doubtful.
Instead of trusting this, it's better to see whose fund flows are truly transparent—that's the old pro's way.
The long-standing conflict between blockchain and regulatory authorities has existed for a while—project teams want recognition and resource support, but also worry about being caught in overly restrictive regulations that could compromise decentralization and flexibility. A project has found an interesting solution to this problem, not through confrontation or compromise, but by redefining the trust model between both parties using technical means.
From a regulatory perspective, their core concern is quite simple: ensure financial stability and prevent risks. The Hedger technology launched by the Dusk project addresses this pain point using zero-knowledge proofs. In simple terms, it can generate a "sealed proof"—demonstrating that all transactions comply with the rules, while keeping the specific details confidential from the outside world. It's like submitting a compliance certificate generated by AI that cannot be forged, instead of detailed invoices to tax authorities. Regulatory agencies can rest assured upon seeing this proof, satisfying compliance requirements without having to sift through massive transaction records.
From the user side, the demand is equally urgent. Who wants their account balances and transaction details to be watched by the entire world on the blockchain? Traditional finance offers account privacy protections, but blockchain often presents a "transparent" level that can be uncomfortable. The cleverness of Hedger lies in providing "controllable privacy"—during normal operations, transaction details are fully hidden; when necessary (such as for law enforcement or legal requirements), specific transactions can be selectively disclosed to designated agencies. This approach protects users' business secrets while providing regulators with the necessary transparency.
The brilliance of this solution is that it doesn't choose sides between regulation and freedom but uses technology to find a third way. It allows both sides to get what they want while sacrificing what is unnecessary. This approach may offer some valuable lessons for the entire industry.