Recently, I've come across quite a few bearish analyses on Dusk, with detailed data laid out. At first glance, it does seem a bit disappointing. However, I've been immersing myself in Dusk's technical documentation and testnet lately, and I've gradually identified an issue — we might be using the current maturity standards to evaluate something that is fundamentally building a different set of game rules.

Yes, Dusk currently has a low TVL and few ecosystem applications, which indeed makes it look somewhat quiet. But this precisely highlights a key point: it has never aimed to compete with other DeFi chains for the same user base. Dusk is targeting a different pool — bringing over assets from traditional finance that originally dared not go on-chain, such as private equity, debt products, fund shares, and similar assets. These "big investors" are still preparing to enter, and one or two years is a normal timeframe.

What I find most interesting is whether Dusk's "compliance abstraction layer" can truly work. They have turned requirements like KYC/AML into on-chain verifiable identity credentials, using zero-knowledge proofs to achieve the seemingly contradictory goal of being "regulatory compliant without exposing privacy." It sounds complex, but once successful, institutional users won't need to build their own entire compliance toolchains — they can just use it directly. The key is that this logic is embedded directly into Dusk's virtual machine XSC, not patched on top but fundamentally changing the underlying rules.

Looking at the ecosystem, although applications are few, they are of very particular quality — such as PieSwap, a compliant DEX, asset tokenization platforms, and identity management tools. You won't find common meme coins or typical "shitcoin" projects here; participants are clearly taking a different approach. This perhaps indicates that Dusk's early builders chose this relatively quiet but more clearly defined path.