DeFi has reached today, still facing a fundamental paradox. Over the years, liquidity has been abundant, but stability is extremely poor—when policies change, big players turn around and leave. The root cause is not complicated: legitimate large-scale capital simply dares not enter the market.



Imagine a bank managing hundreds of billions in assets, considering investing client funds into a completely anonymous liquidity pool with an unknown counterparty. How would the risk control department think? This is not a technical issue, but a compliance issue. Therefore, DeFi has been kept outside traditional finance not because of insufficient performance, but because the trust foundation is absent.

Blockchain privacy has long been regarded as the opposite of regulation. After the Tornado Cash incident, people became even more wary of "privacy," as if privacy equals money laundering. But recently, I saw a project idea that is completely different—it's called Dusk.

**From Opposition to Balance**

Dusk does not follow the old path of "absolute invisibility," but instead designs a mechanism of "controllable transparency." The logic is quite clever:

For users, transaction data is encrypted and stored, so your holdings and transaction history won't be visible on the entire chain. For regulators, they have special permissions that allow them to verify the legality of transactions on demand—whether there is money laundering, whether investor identities are compliant—but they cannot see business details.

This move completely reverses the nature of privacy. Originally seen as a "tool to evade scrutiny," it now becomes a "bridge to meet regulatory requirements." Large financial institutions never wanted complete invisibility; they want to be able to prove their innocence to superiors while protecting their business strategies from being exposed to competitors.

**Why is this so important**

If this design can truly be implemented, it means DeFi has the chance to break through that glass door. Compliance is no longer the enemy of DeFi but a prerequisite for entry. Institutions managing large funds finally have a reason to enter. Liquidity issues might really be solved—not because retail investors suddenly increase, but because institutional-level capital is willing to stay long-term.

This is not a revolution, but an evolution. Moving from outright confrontation to finding a space for coexistence.
DUSK-0,63%
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.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
LiquidityNinjavip
· 3h ago
Oh wow, someone finally articulated this idea clearly. Compliance and privacy don't necessarily have to clash. Institutional funds just need this kind of psychological reassurance. Dusk's controllable and transparent approach indeed addresses this concern. But the problem is the implementation difficulty. Is the regulatory side really willing to cooperate?
View OriginalReply0
fren_with_benefitsvip
· 3h ago
Hey, so Dusk's move is aiming for "controllable privacy"? Sounds good, but it still depends on how it gets implemented. Do big institutions really dare to come?
View OriginalReply0
WalletManagervip
· 3h ago
The logic of controllable transparency truly impressed me, especially since the control over private keys remains unchanged. Institutional funds entering the market can indeed improve liquidity, but I am more concerned about the contract audit report—how is Dusk's code quality, and what is the risk coefficient? By the way, this kind of "regulatory special permissions" design should be cautious; otherwise, vulnerabilities might appear again.
View OriginalReply0
LayoffMinervip
· 3h ago
In other words, it's about wanting the big fish to come in, but first, we have to reassure the sharks. --- Dusk's move is actually opening a backdoor for regulators—protecting user privacy + on-chain transparency... sounds good, but implementation is hard to say. --- Institutional funds have been stuck on compliance for so long; someone should have thought of this solution earlier. --- Controlled transparency? It still feels like gambling on regulatory patience. What if regulators change their stance once it's actually used? --- The root of liquidity instability is still trust issues. Will this work this time... a bit doubtful. --- Breaking the glass door sounds good, but only if the glass really gets broken, not just reshaped to block people again. --- The game between DeFi and traditional finance is always ongoing. Dusk is just a middle ground solution—let's see how long it can last.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHarvestervip
· 4h ago
Hey, wait a minute, do I actually start to believe this logic... Can the controllable transparency system really work? Institutional players entering the market is indeed a lifeline for DeFi, but I still have a question about Dusk's "dual key" design... If the authority is given to regulators, won't it just become another form of centralization? Honestly, compared to high-level design, I'm more concerned about whether it will be slapped in the face by policies after implementation. What has history taught us... When it comes to privacy projects, what sounds good one second can turn into a risky asset the next. By the way, what's the current price of Dusk's token? Is this worth paying attention to?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)