2026-01-09 01:31:28

These years, discussions about blockchain have never stopped. Is it a revolution or just being co-opted? But we have overlooked a more practical issue: there is no truly trustworthy channel between traditional finance and public blockchains.

The institutional world emphasizes compliance, auditing, and privacy protection. The public blockchain world stresses openness, transparency, and permissionless access. These two systems speak entirely different languages and cannot understand each other.

Recently, after reviewing DUSK's operational approach, I suddenly realized how thoroughly it has thought through the problem. This project is not about overthrowing anyone but aims to serve as the "translation layer" and "infrastructure"—opening up an on-chain pathway for traditional financial assets worth trillions that can both ensure privacy and meet compliance requirements.

Looking at a few key strategies clarifies this.

First is foundational support. DUSK's CEO also serves as the CTO of the Dutch stock exchange NPEX. This is not just a simple business partnership but a deep integration at the genetic level. From the very beginning of its design, this protocol has been built with a profound understanding of traditional financial market rules.

Second is technological breakthrough. DUSK is not constrained by the label of "privacy coin." It has introduced an innovative solution called "Moonlight"—allowing users and institutions to choose flexibly: if complete privacy is needed, it is fully private; if auditability is required, it can be audited. This clever approach circumvents the regulatory and public opinion risks often faced by privacy coins, significantly reducing traditional institutions' adoption concerns.

Finally, the incentive mechanism. Every participant can benefit from consensus, truly enabling the entire ecosystem to turn and operate.

Seeing through these details, it becomes clear why the potential of this project might be greatly underestimated.

DUSK12,13%

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NotFinancialAdviser

· 01-10 02:39

The idea of this translation layer really hits the point, but projects caught in the middle also carry quite a bit of risk. To put it simply, institutions want stability and regulatory certainty, while public chain enthusiasts want decentralization. DUSK needs to satisfy both sides, and even a slight tilt can offend a lot of people. Moonlight's flexible selection approach sounds good in theory, but when it comes to implementation, will it turn into something that doesn't quite fit? The DUSK CEO's identity definitely adds points, but how much the endorsement from the Dutch exchange can help still depends on actual future applications.

View OriginalReply0

faded_wojak.eth

· 01-09 05:36

This thinking in the translation layer is indeed clear-headed. It's not about trying to start a revolution again, but about recognizing reality and finding an exit. Well said, the two worlds simply can't communicate, and DUSK has found a bit of a way. The Moonlight plan is brilliant, providing both privacy and auditability, directly resolving the nightmare of regulation for privacy coins. Is the CEO still the CTO of NPEX? This integration is quite intense; the fundamental genetics are different. If incentive design keeps up, the ecosystem can truly operate. Just having technology without participation is pointless. This pragmatic middle ground is indeed easy to overlook; everyone prefers to hear stories of disruption. If the trillion-dollar asset pathway is truly paved, the potential isn't just underestimated, it's forgotten.

View OriginalReply0

OfflineNewbie

· 01-09 02:01

The positioning of the translation layer really hits the mark, much more reliable than projects that just shout about disruption. Both sides are truly talking past each other; thinking this way actually makes it clearer. The CEO also serving as the Chief Technology Officer of NPEX is indeed different; the concept of gene fusion is brilliant. The Moonlight plan's flexible switching between privacy and audit is truly clever... It immediately alleviates institutional concerns. The imagination of a trillion-asset channel truly has no ceiling. The flexible choice between complete privacy or auditability really solves the long-standing issue that privacy coins have been stuck on. This approach is much clearer than many projects; instead of being revolutionaries, they are engineers. Compliance and transparency can coexist; this is what major institutions truly desire.

View OriginalReply0

AirDropMissed

· 01-09 02:00

Oh, this is the right path. No more messing around with utopian ideas, just focus on practical middle-layer solutions. Traditional finance looks down on the on-chain approach, and the DUSK concept indeed hits the pain points. The setup of the CEO also serving as the CTO of the Dutch exchange is really awesome, not just talk. I think the Moonlight method of flexibly switching privacy levels is good; compliance and privacy don't have to be mutually exclusive. But how is DUSK's current size... feels like the discussion is so low, could it really be underestimated? Converting trillion-level traditional financial assets to the chain sounds easy in theory, but it’s uncertain how long it will actually take to implement. Are the incentive mechanisms reliable? Or will they turn into schemes to fleece users again?

View OriginalReply0

ETHmaxi_NoFilter

· 01-09 01:58

This idea is indeed brilliant, but to be honest, do those people in traditional finance really believe in what's on the chain? I still have some doubts. Finally, someone dares to say that the two worlds don't understand each other. It was about time someone stepped up as a translator. Moonlight's move is indeed clever. Privacy coins have been constantly suppressed, but can a different approach really fool regulators? Let's wait and see. The CEO also serves as the CTO of NPEX. This connection is indeed solid. If they can bring trillions of assets onto the chain, that would be revolutionary. The Dutch are very meticulous in their work. They seem much more reliable than those American projects. Is this what Web3 should look like? Not just blindly promoting hard forks, but truly understanding the pain points of traditional finance. Projects with proper incentive mechanisms have basically succeeded. DUSK hasn't been fooling around in this regard. It doesn't sound as tech-heavy as expected; instead, it feels more like a businessman's idea, but that's actually easier to succeed with.

View OriginalReply0

NeverVoteOnDAO

· 01-09 01:56

Once again, it's the "bridging traditional finance" argument. I've heard it too many times. Can it really be implemented? Having the CEO title alone isn't enough; the key is whether regulators will truly approve. Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical. The Moonlight plan sounds good, but can institutions really trust the flexible privacy level options? Thinking back to DUSK's previous moves, it didn't seem to make much splash. Will this time be different? It feels a bit overly packaged with marketing stories. Let's wait and see how it performs in actual applications. But on the other hand, if it can truly connect traditional finance with the on-chain world, that’s a big leap in imagination. No wonder some people are optimistic.

View OriginalReply0