I want to share a perspective on Dusk that might be a bit hard to swallow: I believe the true competitive advantage of this privacy project doesn't necessarily lie in how strong its privacy technology is or how compelling its compliance story is, but in whether it dares to incorporate those "unclear" issues from the financial world directly into system rules, allowing mechanisms to handle the messy realities.

Why am I suddenly paying attention to this? Because I’ve noticed that when people discuss projects, they often focus only on scenarios where "everything is normal"—transactions go smoothly, processes are seamless, data validation is OK, user experience is good. But anyone can do that. The truly valuable aspects are actually hidden in the opposite: how disputes are resolved, who is responsible when rights are fuzzy, how to handle information disclosure conflicts, what to do when smart contracts clash with real-world regulations. These "abnormal situations" determine whether a system can truly manage real assets.

And Dusk’s design can’t avoid these complications. When dealing with regulated assets on-chain, gray areas are inevitable. Ignoring them will only cause the system to be dragged down by these ambiguities.

Honestly, many architectures in the crypto space seem perfect because they imagine the world as too clean—addresses are neutral, transactions are proactive, rules are fixed, and when something goes wrong, it’s all the user’s fault. But that’s not how the real world operates. In reality, rules need to be interpreted by people, responsibilities need to be assigned by people, rights need to be activated, and disputes need to be settled.

Designing systems only in ideal conditions? That means only connecting to ideal assets. Want to handle real assets? You must forcibly deal with those fuzzy, gray areas. Most privacy public chains haven’t figured out how to cross this hurdle.