Is @Dusk solving compliance — or just buying time before surveillance eats everything?
Is DUSK solving compliance, or just delaying the inevitable surveillance layer?
Dusk builds privacy-first rails — confidential smart contracts (XSC), shielded transactions, and ZK-friendly primitives (BLS12-381, JubJub, Poseidon) to hide balances and amounts while enabling institutional tokenization.
But privacy + compliance is a contract: regulators demand auditable trails. Dusk’s model pushes that tradeoff on-chain by offering selective disclosure and governance hooks for view-keys/regulated attestations — useful, but also a formalized “escrow” for surveillance.
Token utility (fees, staking, migration to native) incentivizes activity but doesn’t change the core: more adoption raises pressure for standardized audit interfaces — turning privacy into configurable visibility.
A 2-column timeline (Privacy Primitives vs Regulatory Features) plotting launch dates for XSC/ZK primitives against rollout dates for selective-disclosure APIs and auditor integrations — the gaps reveal when privacy was live without compliance adapters.
Bottom line: Dusk buys time and compliance ergonomics
it doesn’t eliminate the surveillance vector; it industrializes selective visibility and centralised compliance incentives.
