Dusk Foundation has recently been a hot topic of discussion, but I’ve noticed that many people hold several deeply ingrained misconceptions about this project. Let’s clarify them all at once and break down these misunderstandings in the most straightforward way.



First is the understanding of privacy. Many people instinctively equate privacy with anti-regulation, but in actual institutional applications, the opposite is true. The core value of privacy design is to protect investors and transaction details within a strict regulatory framework. This is fundamentally to better facilitate audits, not to evade them. This logic is especially critical for institutions with a traditional financial background.

The second common idea is to view DUSK purely as a hype symbol. But if you look deeper into the underlying network design, the token is not just a decoration; it carries the actual needs for resource consumption and security budgeting. Bridge fees, transaction fees, staking participation—these are the concrete pathways that turn DUSK from a conceptual token into a real-use requirement.

Regarding the role of the two-way bridge, some also think it’s just a small tool. Not at all. Once the two-way bridge is operational, assets can flow freely between the mainnet and external ecosystems. This directly improves the difficulty for developers to introduce liquidity, makes asset migration seamless for users, and significantly reduces friction across the entire ecosystem.

Some also interpret exchange listings as merely a game of price fluctuations. But for projects aiming to follow a compliant route, support from mainstream compliant trading platforms is more like building a channel. It enhances asset accessibility and the efficiency of price discovery, which is crucial for institutional allocation.

The last easily overlooked point is the value of standardization. Institutional investors fear having to go through a customized process each time they connect. The stronger the interoperability and the clearer the data standards, the easier it is to replicate at scale. This is exactly what Dusk is working on.
DUSK-18,38%
View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
APY追逐者vip
· 18h ago
Wow, finally someone has clarified these convoluted points. Privacy ≠ anti-regulation, and this really needs to be emphasized repeatedly.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropAutomatonvip
· 18h ago
Oh, finally someone has explained these thoroughly. I've long wanted to point out that privacy ≠ anti-regulation. Institutions are actually aiming for compliant privacy, not just hiding and seeking. DUSK as a decoration? Come on, staking, bridging fees, transaction fees—all are real money. Why should tokens be considered virtual? From this perspective, it indeed holds up. Bidirectional bridges that facilitate liquidity are the real hardcore stuff. Lowering friction coefficients is what allows the ecosystem to thrive. The previous isolated ecosystems were indeed useless.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketSagevip
· 18h ago
Another big article on "correcting perceptions"... Alright, I need to listen carefully. The perspective that privacy ≠ anti-regulation is indeed something I hadn't considered.
View OriginalReply0
CrossChainMessengervip
· 18h ago
Alright, brother, finally someone has clarified these points. I was also misled before and thought privacy was just for tax avoidance. DUSK's logic is indeed interesting. The idea of compliant privacy is too crucial for institutions and much more reliable than those purely hype projects. But regarding the two-way bridge, the idea of reduced friction sounds good, but what about the actual adoption rate? That's the real test, right? --- Tokens without real demand are indeed虚; it seems they've thought this through quite thoroughly, with staking fees and other aspects well planned. --- Walking the compliance route so solidly actually changed my view of this project. It doesn't feel like just riding the hype. --- I hadn't considered interoperability and standardization from this perspective before. Institutions definitely want this—having a set of processes used everywhere is more cost-effective. --- It sounds reasonable, but how many developers are actually using it in the ecosystem? That's the data I want to see.
View OriginalReply0
YieldWhisperervip
· 18h ago
actually the tokenomics math feels off here... bridge fees and staking demand alone don't usually sustain real utility, seen this exact playbook in 2021. let me dig into the contract.
Reply0
BlockchainRetirementHomevip
· 18h ago
Wow, finally someone has clarified these misconceptions one by one. I was also misled before, thinking that privacy equals avoiding regulation. Now that I think about it, that was so naive. In institutional scenarios, privacy is actually to better cooperate with audits, and this logical reversal is brilliant.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)