Many people look at Dusk and often label it as an "undervalued serious project." But from a different perspective, it’s actually closer to a "complex project completely ignored by the market." It’s not that it has no ideas; rather, its ideas are too brain-intensive to be explained in a single sentence.

What is Dusk doing? It’s not a general-purpose public chain, nor a privacy coin, but a set of "controlled privacy" underlying infrastructure. The core logic is: assuming that in the future, a large number of compliant assets will move onto the blockchain, but these assets cannot be openly hashed on-chain like Meme coins. They require a set of permissions management, audit tracing, and identity verification.

Sounds reasonable. The question is—will this premise really be realized?

Traditional finance, if it truly wants to go on-chain, has a hundred easier ways: consortium chains, private chains, traditional database systems. These solutions can meet 80% of their needs. There’s no need to touch the uncontrollable factors brought by public chains.

Dusk promotes its "openness" and "composability," which sounds very attractive. But for conservative large institutions, openness and composability are usually not selling points; rather, they can be potential risks.

Looking at the token aspect: In the Dusk ecosystem, DUSK acts more as an infrastructure incentive rather than a core story. What does this mean? If there are no real businesses running on-chain, and no genuine transaction volume burning, the token’s presence will become extremely faint.

So, the judgment on Dusk is actually quite subtle: it may be on the right track in terms of direction, but it’s not necessarily essential. A project that is "possibly correct but non-essential" often finds it hard to survive in the market.