Recently revisiting Dusk, I suddenly realized a previously overlooked key point: the underlying capability of protocol governance and rule enforcement. This is not about community voting activity or governance interface design, but a more practical issue—when rules need to be adjusted, disagreements arise, parameters need to be modified, or on-chain anomalies need to be handled, can Dusk's system truly implement these rules while ensuring finality and stability? If this aspect is poorly handled, all the ideas about finance, compliance, privacy, and clearing will ultimately get stuck in reality.

Speaking of which, Dusk's positioning itself determines that it cannot bypass governance challenges. Regulated assets, compliant applications, long-cycle settlements—these are not things that can be "done and dusted" with just code deployment. Rules will change, parameters will need adjustment, and unexpected situations will occur. The key difference lies in whether these changes are coordinated manually or supported by the protocol's inherent mechanisms. If Dusk wants to establish itself as a financial infrastructure, governance must be a core system capability, not just a remedial afterthought.

The most fundamental point is: rules must be "enforceable," not just "described." Currently, many projects' governance only stay at the descriptive level—whitepapers are clear, forum discussions are lively—but in practice, once on-chain, rules cannot be forcibly enforced by the system, ultimately relying on manual judgment. In financial scenarios, this is a major taboo because manual judgment implies uncertainty, unclear responsibilities, and compliance risks.