In the financial system, regulation and auditing have never been modules that can be added on later. Many blockchain projects start this way—first build the technical framework, then try to patch compliance with external tools or application-layer logic. But once they encounter real financial scenarios, structural issues are exposed.
Dusk took a different approach. From the very beginning of the project design, it was never intended for the blockchain to operate independently of the regulatory environment. Instead, the idea was the opposite—since regulation and auditing are long-term, objective constraints, they should be integrated directly into the system's core logic. It sounds simple, but this premise changes the entire architectural mindset.
From a design perspective, this is indeed more complex. Account permissions, data visibility, and verification processes must be clearly defined at the foundational level, rather than relying on the application layer to handle them. Complexity comes at a cost. But what is gained? Overall system consistency. Once compliance and auditing capabilities are built into the core, there's no need to reinvent the wheel when developing applications on top.
Compared to projects that add compliance mechanisms later, which often require major structural overhauls—high costs and high risks—Dusk set clear rules early on, avoiding frequent rewrites and making the project route more stable.
There's also a common misconception—auditing does not weaken privacy. Dusk's approach is to draw a clear line between the two, allowing privacy protection and auditing needs to coexist within the same system, rather than suppress each other. Only then can blockchain truly participate in financial processes rather than being kept outside.
Therefore, integrating regulation and auditing into the core design of Dusk is not a conservative choice. It is a system judgment based on financial realities. It’s more about building infrastructure than conducting short-term technical experiments. Because of this, it provides a more solid foundation for compliant financial applications.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MEVHunterWang
· 6h ago
I've already said it, projects that take compliance seriously will go further.
---
Another project that only changed its architecture later; this time it wasn't as bad.
---
Alright, at least he has some brains, not the kind to shift blame to regulators first.
---
It sounds good, but what if compliance is hardcoded at the bottom layer? What to do in the gray areas?
---
This approach is indeed refreshing, much better than those patchwork solutions.
---
Can privacy and auditing really run in parallel? I doubt it; it depends on how it performs in practice.
---
Finally, there's one that doesn't prioritize technology over compliance first, saving a lot of trouble.
---
In theory, there's no problem, but I'm worried they'll come up with new tricks later.
---
Indeed, setting the rules at the bottom layer makes things easier, no need to change them every day.
View OriginalReply0
SchroedingerAirdrop
· 7h ago
This approach is indeed different. Hardcoding compliance logic at the underlying layer can indeed save a lot of trouble later on.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleWatcher
· 7h ago
This is the true way to understand finance, not something that can be fixed with a quick patch.
To be honest, most projects just want to go live quickly to gain popularity, and they don't care about regulation at all. When problems explode, they scramble to change the architecture, and by then, the cost has already doubled.
Dusk has always prioritized compliance as the main course rather than a dessert, I respect this approach.
The fact that privacy and auditing can coexist is the highlight; other projects haven't even thought it through.
View OriginalReply0
not_your_keys
· 7h ago
I've been saying it all along, laying the foundation first and then selling the concept is the way to go.
In the financial system, regulation and auditing have never been modules that can be added on later. Many blockchain projects start this way—first build the technical framework, then try to patch compliance with external tools or application-layer logic. But once they encounter real financial scenarios, structural issues are exposed.
Dusk took a different approach. From the very beginning of the project design, it was never intended for the blockchain to operate independently of the regulatory environment. Instead, the idea was the opposite—since regulation and auditing are long-term, objective constraints, they should be integrated directly into the system's core logic. It sounds simple, but this premise changes the entire architectural mindset.
From a design perspective, this is indeed more complex. Account permissions, data visibility, and verification processes must be clearly defined at the foundational level, rather than relying on the application layer to handle them. Complexity comes at a cost. But what is gained? Overall system consistency. Once compliance and auditing capabilities are built into the core, there's no need to reinvent the wheel when developing applications on top.
Compared to projects that add compliance mechanisms later, which often require major structural overhauls—high costs and high risks—Dusk set clear rules early on, avoiding frequent rewrites and making the project route more stable.
There's also a common misconception—auditing does not weaken privacy. Dusk's approach is to draw a clear line between the two, allowing privacy protection and auditing needs to coexist within the same system, rather than suppress each other. Only then can blockchain truly participate in financial processes rather than being kept outside.
Therefore, integrating regulation and auditing into the core design of Dusk is not a conservative choice. It is a system judgment based on financial realities. It’s more about building infrastructure than conducting short-term technical experiments. Because of this, it provides a more solid foundation for compliant financial applications.