When it comes to privacy chains, there are two common extremes in the community: one loudly promoting "absolute anonymity," and the other turning a deaf ear and ignoring regulation. But anyone who has worked in finance knows that this approach doesn't work. Regulation is there, and you can't hide from it, especially when it comes to on-chain securities, bonds, funds, and other such assets. If compliance isn't met, no matter how good the technology is, it's useless.

The Dusk project is essentially taking a middle-ground approach. It doesn't claim to be "against the system," but instead assumes a realistic scenario: that future finance will definitely be regulated, just with evolving methods. Is this assumption correct? Just look at how it's designed, and you'll see.

For example, the use of zero-knowledge proofs isn't about simply hiding everything, but rather "selective disclosure"—keeping privacy when needed, but allowing regulators to see certain information when authorized. It sounds simple, but it actually solves a big problem.

The pitfalls of traditional finance aren't just about lack of transparency, but about excessive and chaotic transparency. Your account balance, transaction history, holdings—all visible to the public seems unreasonable, but regulators must be able to audit. Both sides need to be satisfied—that's the reality. Dusk aims to address this—not by debating "whether to regulate," but by defining "who can see what under what conditions."

From a technical perspective, Dusk has developed a series of customized solutions for the issuance and trading of compliant assets. Privacy transfer logic tailored for securities-like assets, identity management systems... These aren't designed to evade regulation, but to protect user privacy within a regulatory framework. Is this approach valuable? Just look at how many institutional assets will go on-chain in the future.