Let's look at it from a different perspective. Without discussing technology or promoting partnerships, let's talk about a judgment rule that only makes sense after experiencing losses: For any project claiming to be compliant, institutional, or RWA, don't rush to ask how much you can earn. First, ask what price they are willing to pay. Because true compliance is never free—most so-called free compliance is just packaging.

I've been burned by "compliance stories" before. Those projects follow the same套路: first label themselves as "the next-generation compliant financial infrastructure," then pile on a bunch of formal terminology. The end result usually falls into one of two categories—either becoming an obscure, closed system with no one paying attention, or sacrificing compliance requirements for openness. Both end up losing money.

So when I evaluate projects like Dusk, I set a rule for myself: don't listen to what they say, just see if they dare to openly state the costs involved and whether they are willing to bear those costs long-term.

The core logic is actually very clear. On-chain acceptance of regulated assets essentially forces a merging of the "power system" and the "consensus system." Power involves authorization, responsibility chains, and confidentiality; consensus involves openness, verification by all, and immutability. These two are inherently conflicting, which inevitably causes friction—this friction is the real cost.

If any project tells you "it's both confidential and transparent, both compliant and fully decentralized, both open and zero barriers," I immediately close the page. It's not worth wasting time.