2026-01-21 11:21:35

Compliance in traditional finance is like describing the motion of gas molecules—full of probabilities, various exceptions, and a range of unpredictable individual behaviors. In simple terms, it's a bunch of vague rules that require lawyers to constantly interpret and enforce.

Dusk Network aims to do things differently. It wants to rewrite this set of fuzzy regulations into physical laws. You read that right—like Newtonian mechanics, precise, universal, and mathematically verifiable laws.

How to achieve this? The key tools are the Hedger engine combined with zero-knowledge proof technology. The power of these two lies in transforming subjective social judgments like "Does this transaction comply with regulation A or B?" into a mathematical problem that any node can independently verify—"Is this proof valid?" Once the proof is valid, compliance is no longer a game of probabilities or personal opinions, but an objective technical fact tightly linked to the transaction.

It's a bit like installing a set of "Compliance Conservation Laws" in the chaotic world of finance.

The partnership with NPEX is the first real-world validation of this set of laws. NPEX's licensing system provides concrete data—parameters like KYC standards and disclosure thresholds. This way, on-chain technical compliance verification aligns perfectly with social legal compliance, giving this new set of laws real enforceability and credibility in the real world.

Under this new framework, Dusk's value is directly tied to the scale of economic activities worldwide that use this set of "financial constants." It’s not just energy for payment compliance calculations but also a means to share the significant efficiency gains brought by increased certainty.

Finally, a big point: Dusk’s ultimate goal may be to complete a cognitive upgrade. To transform compliance from a social science dependent on lawyers and auditors—expensive and imperfect—into an engineering science based on cryptography and consensus—precise and efficient. This is not just an efficiency improvement but a fundamental change in the certainty foundation upon which financial activities can be built.

DUSK-0.46%

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
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasBankrupter

· 2h ago

This logic sounds pretty sexy, but can it really turn compliance into a physical law? Doubtful. Does the zero-knowledge proof system work on-chain? Are lawyers going to be unemployed? Haha. Honestly, it still depends on how far NPEX can go; otherwise, it's all just talk. Newtonian mechanics also has flaws, let alone financial matters. Mathematizing social issues sounds profound, but Dusk's approach is indeed a bit different.

View OriginalReply0

LowCapGemHunter

· 3h ago

Zero-knowledge proofs turn compliance from mysticism into algorithms, which is pretty awesome. --- Basically, it's about using code to replace lawyers' work. Can it work? --- The concept of financial constants sounds like you're creating a religion. --- Can NPEX collaboration verify authenticity? Is it the chain or the chain, law or law, they are separate, right? --- So Dusk still has to rely on NPEX's license in the end; it can't hold the authority itself. --- Engineering compliance... sounds good, but in reality, whether regulatory authorities accept this or not is the key. --- If certainty can be improved so easily, lawyers would have been out of business long ago. --- It's interesting, but can zero-knowledge proofs really cover all compliance scenarios? What about black swans? --- The gamble is that cryptography itself won't be broken; otherwise, everything collapses. --- Parameterizing KYC is an advancement, but the rules themselves are always changing.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter

· 4h ago

Wow, this logic is a bit extreme, directly hardcoding the lawyer profession. Does compliance change from probability theory to physical laws? Sounds impressive, but will reality cooperate? Zero-knowledge proofs conforming to financial rules—this is something I need to see how Dusk actually implements. If this set of "laws" can really be verified, then it's definitely worth researching. But honestly, it still depends on whether on-chain data can support such a broad claim. Impressive is impressive, but could it just be another case of empty talk? It reminds me a bit of some projects' "revolutionary" promises before—what happened later? Forget it, I'll just keep observing. This direction is indeed innovative.

View OriginalReply0

RugDocScientist

· 4h ago

Zero-knowledge proofs can truly eliminate regulatory rent-seeking, this is really exciting Turning compliance from a probabilistic game into a physical law? Sounds great, but who will verify the verifiers? Dusk is trying to make lawyers unemployed haha The laws of cryptography conservation... sounds nice, but in reality, it only counts if it can run smoothly This logical chain is beautiful, but I'm worried it might become a new black box NPEX working together to create data sources feels like building a new centralized trust point? With stronger on-chain enforcement, what about legal enforcement? It still depends on mutual checks and balances Mathematics can solve problems that are not essentially social issues; that’s a bit overly optimistic Increased certainty = risk transferred elsewhere, who dares to say that zero-knowledge proofs are 100% secure

View OriginalReply0

WhaleMinion

· 4h ago

It sounds awesome, but can compliance really become a physical law? It sounds good, but in the end, it's still people executing. Zero-knowledge proofs sound a bit suspicious. Can this thing really solve regulatory issues? Dusk's theory is pretty good, but I'm just worried reality will slap it in the face. NPEX cooperation sounds like big news, but it still feels like just a pilot. Automating compliance? Just listen to it; it will probably take years to implement. Mathematics can solve financial problems, but I can't quite follow this logic. Isn't this just trying to bypass regulations with technology? That's how I understand it anyway. The ultimate goal sounds grand, but in reality, regulation never follows the rules. Cryptography is reliable, but lawyers won't be so easily unemployed. It's interesting, but I still remain skeptical about on-chain compliance. Comparing Newtonian mechanics to finance is a bit too romantic.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoTherapist

· 4h ago

nah wait, let me unpack this emotional resistance first... the anxiety of replacing lawyers with math? we gotta sit with that 🧠

Reply0