No matter how advanced privacy technology is, it all comes down to cost. The real bottleneck for on-chain privacy has never been how difficult the technology itself is, but rather how crazy the price you have to pay for it.
Running a complex ZK proof on Ethereum? Gas fees easily start at dozens of dollars. Retail investors might occasionally accept this, but what about institutional-level high-frequency quantitative trading? The math simply doesn’t add up. That’s why most privacy solutions on the market have always struggled to open the door to traditional finance—the core reason lies here.
Dusk’s approach is different. It didn’t follow the old path of "packaging ZK verification into expensive smart contracts," but instead directly integrated ZK verification as native instructions at the consensus layer. This is a qualitative leap—completely avoiding the high computational costs from the architecture level. To use a vivid analogy, it used to rely on postal workers passing data packets one by one; now it’s like laying fiber optic cables directly.
As long as the cost of privacy transactions is driven close to zero, traditional financial institutions managing trillions in assets will truly consider blockchain as their settlement infrastructure. This is the key step for privacy public chains to achieve large-scale adoption.
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.
13 Likes
Reward
13
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
PanicSeller
· 3h ago
This logic makes sense; gas fees are really the killer feature. I used to think ZK was super impressive, but after doing some calculations, I was completely convinced.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityHunter
· 3h ago
Still watching this at 3 AM... The Dusk solution indeed hits the core. Once zero-cost private transactions are operational, how crazy will the arbitrage opportunities be on the liquidity depth side? This data must be closely monitored.
View OriginalReply0
FastLeaver
· 3h ago
That's right, Gas fees are really the Achilles' heel of privacy solutions. Who can afford to pay dozens of dollars?
I have to admit that Dusk's approach has some merit. Doing native instructions directly at the underlying layer indeed avoids the old problems of smart contracts.
But the question is, how long will it take to lay down this fiber optic cable? It feels like another "theoretically perfect" solution.
Trillion-dollar asset institutions are the real bosses. For retail investors, their privacy needs are basically negligible in their eyes.
Forget it, let's see when Dusk actually manages to cut costs before talking further. Right now, it's a bit overhyped.
View OriginalReply0
ZKProofEnthusiast
· 3h ago
To be honest, gas fees are the gallows for privacy solutions. No matter how impressive the technology is, it won't work.
Dusk's approach is indeed clever—directly implementing native instructions at the consensus layer to avoid the heavy toll of smart contracts. It seems they've really figured it out.
But to be fair, can it really be pushed close to zero cost? Institutional-level quant trading is the real test.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoNomics
· 4h ago
actually, if you run the numbers on dusk's native zk implementation against the current eth gas model, the cost differential becomes statistically significant enough to theoretically alter institutional adoption curves... but let's be real, trad finance won't touch this until regulatory arbitrage makes sense ceteris paribus.
No matter how advanced privacy technology is, it all comes down to cost. The real bottleneck for on-chain privacy has never been how difficult the technology itself is, but rather how crazy the price you have to pay for it.
Running a complex ZK proof on Ethereum? Gas fees easily start at dozens of dollars. Retail investors might occasionally accept this, but what about institutional-level high-frequency quantitative trading? The math simply doesn’t add up. That’s why most privacy solutions on the market have always struggled to open the door to traditional finance—the core reason lies here.
Dusk’s approach is different. It didn’t follow the old path of "packaging ZK verification into expensive smart contracts," but instead directly integrated ZK verification as native instructions at the consensus layer. This is a qualitative leap—completely avoiding the high computational costs from the architecture level. To use a vivid analogy, it used to rely on postal workers passing data packets one by one; now it’s like laying fiber optic cables directly.
As long as the cost of privacy transactions is driven close to zero, traditional financial institutions managing trillions in assets will truly consider blockchain as their settlement infrastructure. This is the key step for privacy public chains to achieve large-scale adoption.