The contradictions of RWA: Why do real-world assets need a privacy-specific chain?



Recently, while researching the tokenization of real-world assets, I encountered an interesting dilemma. On one hand, everyone is shouting "everything can be tokenized," but on the other hand, I wonder: if I were Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase, would I feel comfortable dumping bond trading records onto an existing public chain?

The answer is definitely no. That’s why I’ve recently been paying attention to Dusk.

While reviewing their technical documentation, I found a crucial point: they aren’t aiming to solve every problem with a single solution, but are targeting a real pain point—how to facilitate the smooth digital transfer of assets while protecting commercial secrets. This may not sound groundbreaking, but when you delve into the specifics of their zero-knowledge proof implementation, you realize there’s something different.

Most Layer 1 blockchains treat privacy as an optional feature or an extension plugin, but Dusk considers privacy a necessary condition for asset onboarding. This architectural difference is key—it means it’s not just another high-performance chain. In simple terms, it’s like a "private trading room" tailored specifically for regulated assets like securities and bonds. In this room, transactions can flow freely, but data visibility is strictly controlled.

Particularly, their optimization of the Piecrust virtual machine shows a carefully designed approach within compliance boundaries. This technology breaks the past all-or-nothing choice—no longer forced to choose between "full compliance" and "full decentralization." I used to think blockchain would ultimately move toward complete transparency, but now my view has changed: controlled transparency is the next stage of financial evolution.

As the barriers to asset issuance are lowered by technology, the remaining competition will be about who can provide the most reliable "black box." The black box Dusk is building may very well be the interface that traditional financial institutions have been seeking all along. This isn’t about speculative hype; it’s about how blockchain can truly penetrate the capillaries of the real economy.
DUSK-19,57%
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
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SmartContractPhobiavip
· 19h ago
Sigh, it's the same old story of the privacy chain savior, heard it too many times. Basically, it's just about wanting money and not wanting to be seen, wrapped up nicely under the guise of compliance.
View OriginalReply0
MEVSandwichVictimvip
· 19h ago
Oh wow, finally someone dares to say this. Traditional finance really needs this kind of "black box." To be honest, transparency alone can't fool the folks on Wall Street; privacy chains are the real ticket in. Dusk's approach is indeed different—treat privacy as a necessity rather than an add-on. That's what true experts do. The biggest issue with RWA seems to be the gap between technology and reality. This article hits the nail on the head. But to be fair, the concept of "controllable transparency" is inherently contradictory. Balancing between what is needed and what is desired is the real challenge.
View OriginalReply0
NervousFingersvip
· 19h ago
Oops, this logic is a bit convoluted. Has the privacy chain become a necessity for RWA? --- To be honest, I wouldn't dare throw my transaction records onto Ethereum, and banks definitely wouldn't either. --- Did you really understand the details of zero-knowledge proofs? It seems most people just hear the concept. --- The term "controllable transparency" actually confused me. Is it transparent or not? --- So Dusk is a chain tailored for traditional finance. What does that mean? Is decentralization compromised? --- I can understand this black box approach, but that capillary comment was a bit much. --- If you're really going to get into RWA, privacy chains are indeed more reliable. Otherwise, who can handle data being exposed openly?
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeCryBabyvip
· 19h ago
Huh? So in the end, you still have to do black box to please traditional finance? Doesn't that go against the original intention of Web3? Haha
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeAssassinvip
· 20h ago
It's terrifying to think about. It turns out that ultimately, blockchain still has to serve as a privacy tool for traditional finance.
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)