Many people discuss privacy chains and ask, "What can the technology do?" but I want to approach it from a different angle: does a privacy project dare to truly face regulatory discussions?

Honestly, this is the real test of a project's vitality. The scarcity of Dusk doesn't lie in the technology itself but in its positioning—placing itself in a vulnerable spot that requires balancing privacy protection, compliance requirements, and handling regulated assets. Most projects in the circle are afraid to take this path because once you go down this road, all issues immediately become tough nuts to crack: you can't be vague, you can't rely on public opinion hype, and you can't use "decentralization" as a shield.

My genuine feeling is that if a project only discusses compliance within the crypto community and uses crypto-specific language to explain, it will be impossible to gain trust in the real world. The real world doesn't believe in narratives; it only asks: how exactly is the process implemented? How are responsibility boundaries defined? Who takes responsibility if something goes wrong? Can the data be audited? Will privacy become an excuse for regulatory loopholes?

Dusk's strategy is to define privacy as "the ability to be explained," rather than "a black box of forbidden zones." This may sound abstract, but within a regulatory framework, it becomes very clear—privacy should serve market fairness and the protection of trade secrets, not become a tool to evade regulation.

This is crucial because privacy chains are most easily misunderstood and most vulnerable to blanket regulation. To survive long-term, the design must be built into the technical architecture: protecting transaction details while being able to produce verifiable compliance proofs when necessary. This is the true competitive advantage of privacy chains.