Take a close look at how Dusk's various modules are assembled together, and you'll find that its starting point is actually a bit different. Most blockchains, when designing, ask themselves "How many users do I need to accommodate now, and how many transactions do I need to handle?" but Dusk asks a different question: "What will the future financial ecosystem look like, and how can I lay the groundwork for that future?" These two approaches are indeed on different levels.

Many early blockchains pushed their architecture to the limit, desperately pursuing throughput and hot data. But what happened? Once the market has real needs for privacy, compliance, and permissions, the entire system becomes difficult to adjust, and some designs are even stuck there. Dusk, on the other hand, is quite the opposite — its architecture doesn't seem as aggressive, but from the very beginning, it reserved space for modules like privacy handling, permission management, and verifiability, which are only needed in the long term. From this perspective, this choice is definitely worth considering.

The logic is very clear: on-chain finance will not always be just simple transfers and trading. In the future, more complex asset forms, stricter risk control requirements, and more detailed permission divisions will inevitably emerge. Under this big premise, whether the system can flexibly handle privacy, clearly define permission boundaries, and provide verifiable execution chains are the real core concerns, not how fast it can run now.

Honestly, I was quite skeptical at first. Is this "reserving for the future" architecture over-engineered? If the demand never materializes, these designs might not show their value in the short term. But on the other hand, if you wait until the demand actually appears to re-architect, the cost will be huge. You might have to start over from scratch. Dusk clearly chose to invest more upfront rather than leave a mess for later developers.

So, looking at this project now, I tend to understand it as a "system that prepares in advance for long-term financial complexity." It may not look as flashy as those chains that focus solely on performance in the short term, but as the market's demand for on-chain finance deepens, it will have a stronger capacity to endure. This kind of architectural resilience might not be immediately rewarded by the market, but for the project's long-term value, it is undoubtedly a very solid foundation.