When it comes to Dusk, most people think of the words "privacy transactions." But if you take a closer look at how the Dusk Foundation designs this system, you'll realize that what they are truly tackling goes far beyond just the transaction itself—the key is whether the system can provide an "auditable explanation" when a transaction is rejected.

In the world of regulated assets, this is not a bonus; it is a fundamental requirement.

Dusk's transaction process is not as simple as traditional signature plus state update. It involves a complete chain: rule checking, generating zero-knowledge proofs, and on-chain verification. The logic sounds clear, but the problem also lies here—once a transaction is rejected, it could be due to insufficient qualifications, the lock-up period not being lifted, the quota being full, or even a problem with a certain status bit. These reasons could stem from any rule.

If the system only responds with "proof failed," financial institutions and auditors will be frustrated. They want to know exactly which rule caused the blockage, whether parameters can be adjusted, and if manual intervention is needed. Vague rejections are unacceptable.

The technical challenge Dusk faces is this: it must keep rule details confidential and not disclose them publicly; yet, it must also make the fact of "rejection" itself verifiable. In other words, rejection cannot be a black box result; it must be a state that can be proven on-chain and reviewed by third parties. The system needs to prove not just "I rejected," but "I rejected according to established rules, and the entire rejection process is compliant."

Looking at Dusk's progress, I focus on three points:

1. Whether rejections correspond to explicit proof constraints rather than vague failures.
2. Whether, without revealing rule parameters, the proof can support auditors in conducting reviews.
3. Whether the application layer can leverage these precise rejection details to design user-correctable processes.

If Dusk truly manages to achieve interpretability of the "rejection path," it will have the solid capability to handle compliant transactions. Otherwise, no matter how strong its privacy execution is, it will ultimately fall short in real-world business scenarios.