What happens to DUSK’s value proposition the day regulators demand selective transparency by default?

@Dusk promise: privacy for institutional finance through selective transparency — verify compliance without forcing everyone to disclose. However, upon the flip of the switch by regulators to force selective transparency by default, the advantage of the DUSK network diminishes considerably, and its importance changes altogether. Demand for the chain would skyrocket for regulated securities like tokenized securities platforms and traditional finance sectors like banks on day one itself.

Counterpoint: mandated selective transparency makes DUSK's original privacy play a staple, rather than a niche differentiator. That reduces the speculative narrative potential ("privacy as a rare asset") and shifts focus to network effects around real-world asset issuance, tooling (similar to Citadel's KYC), and enterprise integrations.

Case Study - Compare to Pure Privacy coins (Monero) versus Selective Disclosure projects. Regulators have chosen to implement selective-disclosure coins while dismissing full-privacy coins. They reward protocols with hooks in them instead. Selective disclosure becomes the new standard if policy favors it. DUSK has adoption if it becomes the new standard, now it is a race for speed, developer support, and contracts while nobody cares about its "privacy mythology."#dusk $DUSK