Over the years, I have repeatedly observed a phenomenon: no public chain so far has truly scaled to support institutional-level financial volumes. It's not due to a lack of technical talent; the root problem is that most projects have gone astray in their approach.

This circle has been racing forward at a breakneck speed. Everyone is competing on technical indicators, decentralization levels, TPS numbers, but almost all chains have fallen into the same trap: either treating decentralization as a religious doctrine, insisting on extreme decentralization; or viewing transparency and openness as the ultimate goal, believing that this is the entire meaning of blockchain. But ironically, traditional financial institutions don't need these at all.

Real funds, bonds, funds, securities—these come with two inherent shackles: privacy and compliance. Drop either one, and it's impossible to get institutions to move real money onto the chain. This is also the real reason I have been paying close attention to Dusk Foundation recently; it seems to have touched the core of these two pain points.

**Why haven't institutions taken action?**

I judge whether a chain is friendly to institutions by starting from a real-world scenario: Suppose I run a fund company and want to put bonds or fund shares on the chain for circulation. How should I choose?

Use a conventional public chain? All transaction traces, addresses, and amounts are fully transparent, which is equivalent to exposing the institution's cards and transaction logic completely. The risk cannot be controlled, and no one dares to play like that.

Use a pure privacy chain? Data is indeed tightly hidden, but how do regulators explain this? How do audit processes work? It’s impossible to prove compliance on your own, and regulators will immediately veto, making it a waste of effort.

This is the real dilemma: institutions don't lack the desire to go on-chain; they just can't find a feasible path. Privacy and compliance—neither can be sacrificed.