2026-01-09 05:20:55

Privacy coin tracks seem to have been relatively quiet lately, but the actions of the Dusk project are quite eye-catching. Unlike other privacy solutions, Dusk focuses on the "institutional-grade privacy" sector, which is still largely uncharted territory. Retail users often pursue complete anonymity, but what true institutional clients want is something different—they need a perfect combination of privacy and auditability.

Dusk's technical approach is quite interesting: hiding transaction amounts and address data while allowing regulators to verify compliance through zero-knowledge proofs. From another perspective, it's like placing a frosted glass over your ledger—information is blurred, but those with a special key can still see through when needed.

In an increasingly strict regulatory environment, this kind of compromise design might be more sustainable than simply pursuing "censorship resistance." The latter can easily become a target of policy crackdowns, while the former might even gain official acceptance or support. From a sustainability standpoint, this approach is worth paying attention to. What do you think about this balanced solution between privacy and compliance?

DUSK7,87%

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BloodInStreets

· 8h ago

Hmm... Institutional-level privacy is indeed a value gap, but to be honest, it's still dancing on the regulatory line. One misstep and it could be a bloodbath.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropATM

· 01-10 23:28

Hey, this idea still has some potential. That group of institutions really is like that—want privacy but also want risk to be controllable, unlike us retail investors who are more straightforward. --- Dusk's approach to zero-knowledge proofs is basically a bit of both—wanting it all. But the real question is, can it actually work? It still depends on regulatory mood. --- Compared to those privacy coins that stubbornly resist censorship, this semi-open approach indeed lasts longer. But that's about it—still a censored version in the end. --- The analogy of a frosted glass ledger is pretty good—feels like walking a tightrope. One day, if policies change, it could still crash and burn. --- Institution-level privacy is a path no one has truly taken. If it actually succeeds, it could be an opportunity—just depends on whether the technology can hold up. --- Sounds nice in theory, but it's really just compliance for survival. Whether this business is worth doing depends on each person's stance. --- The market is cold, yes, but this kind of balanced approach is definitely more sensible than those radical factions.

View OriginalReply0

fren.eth

· 01-10 12:10

Brilliant, this is the proper way to do business. Gaining regulatory approval is the only way to survive long-term.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerGas

· 01-10 08:40

To be honest, this set of logic is quite clear-headed. Retail investors want to resist censorship, while institutions need to be able to audit—these two needs are essentially disconnected, and Dusk has found a game-theoretic equilibrium point. The zero-knowledge proof system seems perfect, but the key is who holds the "special key"—this detail determines the distribution of power within the entire system. However, I am more curious about whether truly auditable privacy will attract real customers. Large institutions are not yet in a rush to go on-chain; in fact, they are more afraid of leaving traces through on-chain operations. It might be that gray market activities and arbitrage opportunities are the real market demands. Let's wait for the testnet snapshot to see the on-chain data; anything said now is just speculation.

View OriginalReply0

CounterIndicator

· 01-09 05:50

Institution-level privacy has indeed been overlooked for too long. Dusk's approach is quite interesting and much stronger than those that just shout slogans. --- Honestly, the zero-knowledge proof system isn't completely incomprehensible to regulatory authorities. The key is how to package it. Dusk's direction might really be the right one. --- Wait, isn't this just trying to satisfy everyone? I think it's difficult... --- Institutional clients are indeed different. They want a clean ledger, and this logic makes sense, but can it be implemented successfully? --- The analogy of a frosted glass ledger is brilliant haha. It feels like walking a tightrope—pleasing institutions on one side and guarding against regulation on the other. --- Resisting censorship and compliance are fundamentally two different paths. Dusk chose the harder one. How likely it is to survive is really hard to say. --- I still don't quite understand the details of zero-knowledge proofs, but at least the idea isn't about just ripping off users. That's a plus. --- Compliance and privacy... the words themselves are somewhat contradictory. Does the market really need this kind of thing?

View OriginalReply0

MissingSats

· 01-09 05:50

This idea indeed has some merit. Institutions are the real big sponsors. Retail investors pursue absolute anonymity, but institutions want this kind of gray area. Truly clever.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainRetirementHome

· 01-09 05:49

Brilliant, this is the right way. Privacy coin folks are only thinking about resisting censorship, but as a result, their projects are getting hammered one after another. Dusk's approach is much smarter, being versatile and adaptable.

View OriginalReply0

StopLossMaster

· 01-09 05:38

Honestly, institutional-level privacy is indeed a new approach, smarter than those projects that stubbornly resist censorship. Balancing privacy and compliance sounds good, but can it really be achieved? I trust the technology of zero-knowledge proofs, but the question is, will regulatory authorities really buy into it... Dusk is the right direction; projects that are heading the wrong way should have been phased out long ago. Institutions need that "clean on the surface" feeling, without worrying about being called out every day. But what about retail investors? Who still wants to use privacy solutions with backdoors... The projects that can survive this round are those with a pragmatic approach. Pure idealism has all died under the weight of compliance. In the privacy coin sector, instead of competing fiercely among ourselves, it's better to think about how to coexist with regulators. Dusk's approach at least offers a way forward.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationHunter

· 01-09 05:33

Institutional-level privacy is indeed a fresh perspective, but frankly, it's just the old trick of trying to please regulators. --- The compromise solution sounds good, but will truly large institutions use it? They still want absolute privacy. --- Zero-knowledge proofs are impressive, but can they withstand policy risks? I’m not convinced. --- The frosted glass analogy is quite vivid, but the problem is that the person holding the key has too much power, which is no longer privacy. --- Instead of researching how to please regulators, it's better to make your privacy more robust and aggressive, so no one dares to touch you. --- Basically, it's opening a backdoor for institutions, leaving retail investors sidelined—that's the tragedy of Web3. --- Sustainability... sounds like surrendering to the existing power structures. I find it uninteresting. --- The logic of regulatory-friendly privacy coins is inherently contradictory. Who would believe it? --- I understand Dusk's approach, but surviving is the real key. It's too early to say now.

View OriginalReply0

0xInsomnia

· 01-09 05:33

Institutional-level privacy is really a niche that no one has seriously explored, and Dusk has indeed found a differentiated track. --- To be honest, privacy coins over the past few years have been essentially committing political suicide under strict policies. Dusk, which offers a solution that is both private and auditable, sounds like a fuzzy ball, but perhaps this is the only way to survive. --- The analogy of a frosted glass ledger is excellent, but will regulators truly trust zero-knowledge proofs? It still seems a bit uncertain. --- Retail investors want anonymity, institutions need compliance—these two demands are indeed conflicting. But is it worth compromising privacy attributes for regulatory friendliness? --- Instead of hiding, it's better to face the issue head-on. Dusk's approach is much smarter than sneaky privacy coin projects that play hide-and-seek. --- The point about sustainability is very clear: projects that resist censorship will eventually be suppressed. Having official recognition is the long-term solution.

View OriginalReply0