Many people immediately label Dusk Foundation as a "privacy project" upon seeing it, but such understanding is too one-sided.

The core issue it truly aims to solve is: when the financial system gradually moves onto the blockchain, which information needs to be verified, and which information should not be exposed? This has long been common sense in traditional finance, but on the blockchain, it becomes a challenge—because existing mainstream public chains assume all data is open and transparent. Technically, this is elegant, but from a human nature perspective, it is completely counterintuitive.

Dusk's logic is interesting: it’s not about making the on-chain world "able to run," but about making it "able to reside." Humans cannot live long-term in a completely transparent system. Transparency can indeed prevent corruption, but the cost is the complete exposure of personal identities, business relationships, and asset structures—such exposure can cause entirely new harms. Therefore, Dusk believes privacy is not a rebellion against rules, but should be part of the rules themselves.

Where are the difficulties? First, the technical implementation is extremely complex; second, the real world may outright reject it. Because the trust systems in reality are not built on "you prove," but on "I can intervene at any time." The logic of regulation, judiciary, and banking systems is about active intervention rather than passive verification. Dusk aims to reduce intervention and increase structural trust, which inevitably conflicts with existing power structures.

So, Dusk's greatest risk is not technical failure, but society’s rejection of it. No matter how rational the design is, it’s useless because the real world has never operated rationally. This is not to say Dusk is wrong, but that what it seeks to change is too fundamental.