Ladies and gentlemen, this time I’m approaching this project from a completely different perspective. Let’s set aside the underlying technology, financial philosophy, and trust frameworks. Today, I want to ask a straightforward, realistic, and even somewhat self-interested business question: What exactly is Dusk Foundation selling? Who will actually pay for it? Why would those willing to pay choose it? If no one is rushing to buy now, does that mean there’s no real demand for this?

Honestly, I have an old bad habit. In the past, when looking at projects, I often conflated the concepts of "technical capability" and "business capability." I tended to assume that being technically impressive automatically meant the business could succeed. It was only after several lessons from reality that I started forcing myself to ask questions like: How many people are truly willing to pay real money for what you’re offering?

My current judgment is that Dusk isn’t selling tokens or some grand narrative. What it’s really selling is a service capability—specifically, the ability to "enable regulated assets to go on-chain." The clients for this aren’t retail investors. Retail investors are at most a source of early liquidity and attention. I believe there are three main types of potential buyers.

**First: Institutions wanting to issue or transfer regulated assets**

These people aren’t primarily afraid of whether the blockchain itself is easy to use. Their real fear is—what if something goes wrong, how do they explain it to regulators and internal compliance teams? Putting assets into a transparent environment where all transactions can be scrutinized by the entire network is psychologically overwhelming for them. And that’s before even passing compliance checks. For this group, privacy, disclosure boundaries, and auditability are not just nice-to-haves—they are the entry tickets. Without these, they won’t even consider moving forward.

**Second: Operators of infrastructure like trading, clearing, custody, and risk control**

When these organizations consider integrating a system, their first question isn’t "Can we make money?" but "Can we clearly explain the risks?" Especially in a cross-border regulatory environment, the ability to explain risks is ten times more important than profitability. If a system can transparently display risk flows, information flows, and fund flows, allowing internal risk control to track and reproduce them, it’s extremely attractive to them.

**Third: Institutional investors and asset management firms**

They need trust in the underlying assets. If an on-chain asset can provide sufficient privacy protection while also offering auditable transparency (which sounds contradictory but can be technically achieved), it opens up new possibilities for asset management products and risk control.

At this point, I believe the real issue isn’t whether Dusk’s technology is good or not, but whether these three groups currently have genuine purchasing intent. They are still on the sidelines because the business of onboarding regulated assets onto the chain is still very early worldwide. Regulatory frameworks are evolving, compliance costs are constantly adjusting, and large institutions are waiting for a clear signal.

Therefore, my conclusion is: The reason no one is rushing to buy Dusk isn’t because it has no offerings, but because the buyers who truly need this service are still evaluating whether it’s worth investing. Once that evaluation yields a result, competition in this track will become fierce.