Many people categorize Dusk as a "privacy chain," but in doing so, they actually miss what it is truly trying to accomplish.

I believe a more accurate understanding is—it's like a company building financial infrastructure on the blockchain. A completely different perspective.

The common pitfalls of privacy projects are not in technical difficulty, but in the scenarios themselves being unfeasible. Retail investors don't have a strong obsession with anonymity, and institutions are even less likely to abandon compliance for privacy. Dusk's approach seems to be the opposite: instead of competing over "who's darker," it provides a practical solution that can truly be implemented—verifying necessary data without exposing key information. It can externally demonstrate compliance while internally protecting business secrets. Isn't this what the financial system needs? The logic is complete.

Having worked on on-chain interactions myself, the biggest dilemma is this: either complete transparency—positions, strategies, partners all exposed, like going naked; or total anonymity, which makes it impossible to connect with real-world business. Solutions like Dusk open a middle path—perhaps not the fastest, but if truly paved, it becomes a real business.

That said, the biggest uncertainty remains "who will actually use it." There must be real asset flows on-chain, genuine institutional participation, and application migration willingness; otherwise, no matter how elegant the logic, it’s just self-satisfaction. So I believe DUSK won't be betting on short-term price increases; I care more about whether it can make "verifiable but non-disclosing" a standard feature of products. Only if it truly succeeds can it have the confidence to speak.