Everyone, I want to discuss an interesting phenomenon: why do big players like banks and funds still keep their distance from DeFi?

It's ironic that the feature blockchain prides itself on—full transparency—has become its biggest stumbling block.

From a different perspective, if every move you make and all your cards are under the spotlight, would you dare to act? Institutions face this awkward situation. Trading strategies and position sizes are their lifelines. On a transparent chain, a large rebalancing can be sniped by bots in minutes, causing costs to skyrocket.

The issues go far beyond that. Behind institutions are regulatory constraints—they need to do KYC, undergo audits. A chain that can't simultaneously satisfy "privacy protection" and "regulatory compliance" simply can't serve them.

So, the real need isn't "complete anonymity," but "selective privacy"—keeping details confidential externally while opening a verification window for regulators.

This is what projects like Dusk are doing. They embed auditable privacy into the protocol from the architecture level. Using zero-knowledge proofs and similar technologies, transaction information is encrypted by default, while leaving a "view permission" for regulators. Sensitive information is hidden, what needs to be exposed is exposed—this flexibility is the real killer feature that appeals to institutions.

Looking ahead, as assets like stocks and bonds are moved onto the chain on a large scale, this contradiction will become even more prominent. These assets are highly sensitive, requiring more complex privacy protection frameworks. Dusk's solution provides the technical possibility for compliant circulation of such assets.