2026-01-14 20:22:30

Dusk Foundation once represented the clearest voice in Web3. While the entire community was still shouting "Code is Law," it saw through: the real financial world requires rules, responsibility, and more importantly, accountability.

Thus, this ambitious plan was born—using five years to encode the full set of MiCA regulations into XSC contracts. By implementing zero-knowledge proofs to achieve a "just visible" state, core operations of traditional finance such as securities issuance, share transfers, and dividend distributions can run directly on the public chain.

The numbers look promising. By the end of 2024, the NPEX mainnet will officially launch; in 2025, it will pass the Dutch AFM sandbox certification; by early 2026, the staking addresses will have exceeded 3,500. Everything seems to be progressing as planned.

But the deeper you look, the more obvious the problems become. Dusk's decline is not a technical issue—the technology itself is sound. The real crux lies deeper: its entire premise has been ruthlessly pierced by reality.

Dusk bets that the world needs a "decentralized yet compliant" financial infrastructure. But what is the actual situation? Nobody really needs it.

Traditional financial institutions don't care about "decentralization." They already have a perfect operational toolchain: Euroclear alone handles over 90% of securities clearing in Europe, and T+1 settlement is standard. Platforms like Securitize and Tokeny are even better—they provide end-to-end solutions, handling assets worth over a hundred billion dollars annually.

Although these solutions are centralized, their advantages far outweigh others: they are user-friendly, fast, and reputable. Dusk wants them to abandon this mature system and migrate to a new platform that, while compliant, still requires integration, training, and auditing? The benefits far do not justify the risks and costs of migration. Moreover, why would they take this risk?

DUSK-1,84%

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.

24 Likes

Reward
24
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFTragedy

· 01-17 10:53

Basically, it's a classic clash of "I think the world needs" vs. "The world simply doesn't care." The idealism that one believes in and reality are like this. The pain points you think of and consider important have already been solved by others long ago.

View OriginalReply0

SolidityNewbie

· 01-17 03:40

Basically, it's just overthinking. Will traditional finance really use your stuff? A wishful thinking outcome, looking pretty miserable. No matter how advanced the technology is, it won't matter if no one buys in.

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeOnChain

· 01-16 00:48

Basically, it's a classic case of technological optimism hitting a wall. The logic Dusk envisions is nice and pretty, but traditional finance has already figured it out long ago and doesn't need your "both ways" approach at all.

View OriginalReply0

NullWhisperer

· 01-15 15:50

technically speaking, dusk built the perfect solution to a problem nobody actually has. the whole "decentralized but compliant" pitch was elegant in theory but completely detached from how institutional finance actually operates. they were optimizing for a market that doesn't exist.

Reply0

retroactive_airdrop

· 01-14 20:49

Basically, it's the classic tragedy of "I thought the world needed me." Traditional finance has long since dug its moat, trying to force its way in through Dusk? Dream on. Euroclear's system has been running for so many years; switching to a new system would cost so much that it could completely stall Dusk. Without a killer app, there's no point in reckless experimentation. In fact, it's just a wrong gamble—rules and decentralization are inherently contradictory. Trying to have both the fish and the bear's paw is doomed to fail. It seems we have to wait for the next cycle to see something truly needed emerge.

View OriginalReply0

ZKSherlock

· 01-14 20:43

actually... the whole "decentralized but compliant" premise was doomed from day one. nobody needed that trade-off because traditional finance already solved it—just not in a way that involves cryptographic overhead.

Reply0

GhostAddressHunter

· 01-14 20:41

Basically, it's wishful thinking. Dusk wants to revolutionize traditional finance, but they simply don't buy into that. Why would traditional institutions want to migrate? Isn't a stable, operational system appealing enough, instead of messing around with something new? Decentralization sounds cool but is useless. Real financial decision-making still requires responsible parties.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-2fce706c

· 01-14 20:39

I've already said that projects like this are fake demands. No matter how advanced the technology is, if no one uses it, it's all pointless. That's the reality.

View OriginalReply0

ProtocolRebel

· 01-14 20:28

Basically, Dusk is the fate of overly superstitious technology. No matter how rich the imagination, it can't change reality—Euroclear can handle 90% of European clearing on its own, so why bother with your system? It's a typical case of "we'll make a better wheel," but no one wants it.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullAlarm

· 01-14 20:26

Ah... 3,500 staking addresses sound good, but what about on-chain liquidity data? I haven't seen any. Why do traditional finance need to use Dusk? They have Euroclear, a perfect money-making machine, and they're doing very well. Why change? This is a typical story of "technology is impressive but nobody cares." I've been tracking large addresses of NPEX, the fund concentration... well, can't really say. Compliance is indeed a plus, but compliance doesn't equal market demand. Things with no demand, no matter how beautiful, are just decorations.

View OriginalReply0