Over the past two years, a key evolutionary thread in the blockchain space is not about which narrative experiences the fastest growth, but rather a deeper question: who truly dares to move core financial data onto public blockchains?
Imagine a top-tier brokerage deciding to make order books, market-making strategies, client holdings, and clearing instructions fully transparent and on-chain. It sounds very Web3, but what is the reality? Institutional risk control systems would immediately raise alarms, not to mention compliance, disclosure, and trade secrets. Privacy issues for clients could be the death knell for regulators. Many interpret this deadlock as "institutions don't understand blockchain technology," but from another perspective—institutions actually understand very clearly: financial transactions are not social media, and the logic that "more transparency is better" simply doesn't hold here. Once trading intentions are exposed, it becomes an easy target for opponents.
The solution to this dilemma is found in the design philosophy of Dusk Network. Its goal is not to "hide" but to build an on-chain foundation that integrates "privacy + compliance + finality"—a foundation recognized by regulators and directly usable by institutions. According to official documentation, Dusk is positioned as a privacy blockchain for regulated finance, achieving data confidentiality through zero-knowledge proofs, while also making compliance logic into on-chain primitives. Even more interestingly, it treats regulatory requirements like MiCA, MiFID II, DLT Pilot Regime, and GDPR as "system architecture needs," rather than post-hoc "public relations packaging."
The most common misconception is that compliance must mean full transparency. In reality, a more accurate analogy is that audit trails can be reviewed, but no one would pin a client's bank statement on an office bulletin board. What institutions need is "auditable privacy": on-chain transactions that can be traced and verified, but ordinary participants cannot see their counterparties, order details, or risk exposures. This is the real challenge that privacy blockchains aim to solve.
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.
13 Likes
Reward
13
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MevWhisperer
· 49m ago
Honestly, the concept of "auditable privacy" really hits the mark. I've been seeing people on forums say that compliance requires full transparency, but that's completely wishful thinking... The logic of institutions voting with their feet is right here. If order books and position strategies are made public, counterparties could just exploit them—who would do such a foolish thing?
Dusk's approach is indeed different, integrating the regulatory framework directly into the system architecture rather than patching it afterward. At least it doesn't seem so perfunctory. But the key still depends on whether any institution dares to take the first step... Talking about it on paper is always the easiest.
View OriginalReply0
MoonlightGamer
· 01-11 10:52
That makes perfect sense. Finally, someone has pinpointed this pain point. Transparency ≠ Openness. These two terms have been confused for too long. Institutions have long understood this, and Dusk's approach is indeed interesting — treating privacy as an architectural requirement rather than a post-hoc fix. Looking at this idea from a different perspective is truly worth considering.
View OriginalReply0
NftMetaversePainter
· 01-11 10:52
tbh the "auditable privacy" framing hits different... finally someone articulating why transparency theater doesn't work for actual finance. most people still don't get that zk proofs are basically the generative algorithm for institutional trust
Reply0
FOMOmonster
· 01-11 10:52
To be honest, this is the real issue that the blockchain community should consider. The concept of full transparency simply doesn't work in finance, and Dusk has figured that out.
View OriginalReply0
shadowy_supercoder
· 01-11 10:25
Honestly, this is the real deal. The fully transparent approach is a joke in finance; institutions are not fools.
Over the past two years, a key evolutionary thread in the blockchain space is not about which narrative experiences the fastest growth, but rather a deeper question: who truly dares to move core financial data onto public blockchains?
Imagine a top-tier brokerage deciding to make order books, market-making strategies, client holdings, and clearing instructions fully transparent and on-chain. It sounds very Web3, but what is the reality? Institutional risk control systems would immediately raise alarms, not to mention compliance, disclosure, and trade secrets. Privacy issues for clients could be the death knell for regulators. Many interpret this deadlock as "institutions don't understand blockchain technology," but from another perspective—institutions actually understand very clearly: financial transactions are not social media, and the logic that "more transparency is better" simply doesn't hold here. Once trading intentions are exposed, it becomes an easy target for opponents.
The solution to this dilemma is found in the design philosophy of Dusk Network. Its goal is not to "hide" but to build an on-chain foundation that integrates "privacy + compliance + finality"—a foundation recognized by regulators and directly usable by institutions. According to official documentation, Dusk is positioned as a privacy blockchain for regulated finance, achieving data confidentiality through zero-knowledge proofs, while also making compliance logic into on-chain primitives. Even more interestingly, it treats regulatory requirements like MiCA, MiFID II, DLT Pilot Regime, and GDPR as "system architecture needs," rather than post-hoc "public relations packaging."
The most common misconception is that compliance must mean full transparency. In reality, a more accurate analogy is that audit trails can be reviewed, but no one would pin a client's bank statement on an office bulletin board. What institutions need is "auditable privacy": on-chain transactions that can be traced and verified, but ordinary participants cannot see their counterparties, order details, or risk exposures. This is the real challenge that privacy blockchains aim to solve.