INSIGHTER Yi Xi

There's a privacy conversation institutions have in private--and a very different one they're willing to have in public. Publicly, privacy is framed as a checkbox: data protection, access controls, regulatory alignment. Privately, it's treated as risk containment. Because once real financial activity touches a blockchain, the issue isn't secrecy for its own sake-it's exposure. Who can see positions? Who can infer strategy? Who can reconstruct flows just by watching the ledger? Around 2022 and 2023, most institutions avoided the problem by staying off-chain. Once that stopped being viable, the gap between transparent-by-default systems and institutional reality became impossible to ignore. That's where Dusk Network entered the conversation-not loudly, but persistently.
That gap wasn't theoretical.
It was operational.
The problem institutions rarely articulate is simple: full transparency is not the same as trust. In regulated finance, it often works against it. Trading desks don't want strategies observable in real time. Issuers don't want capital structures reverse-engineered from public data. Regulators don't want opacity-but they also don't want surveillance-first systems that create incentives to front-run or game behavior. Most chains tried to solve this by layering tools on top of public execution. Dusk didn't. Privacy was treated as infrastructure, not an add-on. Selective disclosure, verifiable compliance, and confidentiality were built to coexist-especially once regulated issuance moved beyond pilot deployments under EU-style compliance expectations.
That's the tension.
And it's rarely discussed.
You can see the downstream effects when value actually starts to move. Validators don't optimize for opportunism; they optimize for predictability. Governance doesn't perform; it executes. As post-pilot activity settled into production flows, the $DUSK token naturally became more embedded in long-term staking-not through promotional incentives, but because privacy-preserving systems still require economic security to hold under scrutiny. Risk doesn't vanish when data is protected.
It concentrates.
Builders working closely with @Dusk understood early that privacy without accountability is useless-and accountability without privacy collapses under real-world pressure.
The uncomfortable reality is that institutions don't want radical transparency. They want controlled visibility-enough to satisfy regulators, not enough to expose strategy or invite exploitation. That contradiction doesn't show up in marketing decks, but it defines which infrastructures survive contact with serious finance. Dusk didn't solve the privacy problem by making it ideological. It solved it by making it boring, explicit, and enforceable. And in a market still debating whether privacy belongs on-chain at all, that quiet clarity is starting to look less like a niche stance-and more like a baseline requirement.
#dusk

The biggest lie in crypto EVMs isn't that they're scalable.
It's that they're neutral.
For years, the industry sold EVM-compatibility as a universal good-as if running Solidity automatically meant readiness for everything from DeFi to regulated finance. I believed that once too. Most of us did. But the moment institutions tried to deploy real financial products, the cracks started to show. Public-by-default execution. Compliance bolted on after the fact. Privacy treated like an add-on instead of a constraint. Around 2023, those problems were easy to ignore. By 2025, they were impossible to work around. That's when @Dusk took a different path-not by rejecting the EVM, but by refusing to pretend it was enough on its own.
That distinction matters.
A lot.
Here's the part most EVM narratives avoid saying out loud: EVMs were designed for openness, not obligation. That's fine when experimentation is the goal. It breaks when accountability enters the system. Once issuers need selective disclosure. Once validators must behave conservatively under scrutiny. Once regulators expect systems to fail quietly instead of spectacularly. This is where DuskEVM's choices begin to look less ideological and more practical. Privacy wasn't layered on later. Compliance wasn't outsourced. They were treated as first-order requirements. If you've built, audited, or stress-tested EVM systems under real constraints, you've seen exactly where most of them start to bend.
Usually right here.
You can see the consequences of that design philosophy in how the network behaves today. As regulated issuance moved out of pilot environments and into live circulation, the system didn't flinch. No emergency governance calls. No rushed parameter changes. No public explanations for why something "unexpected" happened. Validators behaved predictably because they were economically required to. As more value settled, more $DUSK flowed into long-term staking-not because of incentive theatrics, but because security had to scale with responsibility. That's the part infrastructure tokens are actually meant for. Builders working alongside @Dusk understood this tradeoff early, even when it meant sacrificing visibility for durability.
So if there's one lie worth retiring, it's this: that compatibility equals readiness.
It doesn't.
Readiness comes from designing for the hardest users first, not the easiest ones. If your definition of adoption still requires noise, you'll miss the chains that quietly become unavoidable. DuskEVM didn't win by redefining the EVM-it won by admitting its limits and engineering around them. And while much of the market is still debating performance charts, some infrastructure is already doing the unglamorous work of holding real value together.
That's not a trend.
That's a backbone.
#dusk