Many people ask me why Dusk is difficult. I used to think about this question too. Today, let's look at it from a different perspective — the real source of pressure for this project is not how complex the technology is, but that it has pushed itself into the most arduous path: it must provide privacy protection without becoming a black box; it must meet regulatory expectations without turning the system into a panoramic surveillance tool; it must support financial asset transactions while being evaluated in a market that is eager for quick gains. In simple terms, there is no way out.

Honestly, I was initially wary of the label "privacy chain." It's not a moral issue, purely a practical consideration. The moment it enters the large-scale financial market, regulators, institutional investors, and partners will raise the same questions: how to trace risks? Can the source of funds be verified? How to explain the transaction chain? Where are the responsibility boundaries? Without answers to these, the system is isolated. Many projects can tout privacy as freedom and progress during a bull market, but when the bear market arrives, they are forced to choose — pursue large-scale adoption or stick to niche communities.

The key difference here is crucial. Dusk is not following the path of "the more hidden, the better," but rather the idea that "privacy can also be verified." It seems simple, but in reality, it is an extremely difficult challenge — you need to simultaneously satisfy users' desire for privacy and regulators' need for verifiability. This is not a technical problem; it is a balancing act.