Treat Dusk as an ordinary public chain? Then you're probably going to be disappointed. This project doesn't compete on speed, doesn't rely on low fees, and doesn't attract attention through explosive developer growth. What they're doing is a more challenging task—the idea of adding a "boundary" concept to blockchain.

Boundaries in the real world are everywhere. Enterprises have their boundaries, individuals have theirs, and financial institutions have their own. But on the chain? These boundaries are directly flattened. As long as you've used a certain address, anyone can see all your records clearly. Dusk's stance is straightforward: this isn't progress; it's an extreme design without much thought.

Their approach isn't necessarily to hide everything from view. Instead, they want the system to only expose "the information that needs to be exposed." It sounds reasonable, but in practice, it's full of difficulties. Because the word "need" itself can't be objectively defined. Who decides what's needed? The development team? The user community? Regulatory agencies? The protocol layer? Each answer would create a completely different system model.

That's where I get tangled up with Dusk: I support the conceptual framework, but I’m not sure if it can truly be implemented. This isn't a project that can be solved just by tuning parameters. It involves power distribution, discourse rights, and institutional design—things that have never been purely solvable through technology alone.

If Dusk succeeds, it will be a foundational infrastructure-level presence. And if it fails, it won't be because of flawed design ideas, but because the times aren't ready yet.