There is a well-known dilemma in blockchain—decentralization, security, and scalability cannot be achieved simultaneously. But for public chains focused on financial applications, the problem becomes more specific: how to protect privacy, meet compliance auditing, and not sacrifice performance? Strong privacy often slows down speed; adding compliance mechanisms may break privacy; pursuing high performance requires simplifying functions. These three seem to form a deadlock.



There is a project called Dusk, whose approach is not to cram all functions into a single monolithic system, but to split into modules, each with its own responsibility.

**Execution Layer Handles Privacy Tasks**

The Piecrust VM layer is dedicated to running privacy contracts, based on WASM architecture. You can execute code that includes zero-knowledge proof generation here, and the efficiency is quite good. What are the benefits? This layer can be optimized independently, such as integrating ZK hardware accelerators, without worrying about other layers. The logic for privacy computation, no matter how complex, is handled only here and does not spread throughout the entire system.

**Settlement Layer Manages Compliance and Security**

The SBP consensus takes over settlement and consensus tasks. It provides BFT-like fast finality—something required by financial applications. This layer also embeds global compliance state and audit interfaces, effectively giving the privacy computation results a "compliance anchor," ensuring that each transaction can be traced back to the compliance framework.

**Data Layer Responsible for Throughput**

Separating storage and distribution of transaction data, using data structures and protocols better suited for high throughput. This allows large volumes of privacy transaction data to flow efficiently, easing the system’s performance bottleneck.

The key point is interface standardization. The execution layer outputs a "privacy and compliance" transaction package, along with a proof saying "I executed the privacy contract according to the rules, and all operations meet compliance requirements." The settlement layer does not need to rerun this logic; as long as the proof is valid and consensus order is correct, settlement can be completed.

This is the beauty of modularization—clear division of labor, efficient verification, with privacy, compliance, and performance each having their own focus, without dragging each other down.
DUSK5,88%
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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
DataOnlookervip
· 01-22 12:14
Wow, this idea is truly brilliant. Layered decoupling is the way to break the deadlock.
View OriginalReply0
SerLiquidatedvip
· 01-20 16:44
The modular architecture approach is indeed clever, but honestly, it still depends on how well it performs in practice.
View OriginalReply0
WenMoonvip
· 01-20 07:47
The modular approach is truly brilliant. It feels like someone finally clarified the contradiction between privacy and compliance.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingersFOMOvip
· 01-20 07:47
This modular approach is indeed clever, but to be honest, how many projects ultimately end up struggling and getting battered by reality?
View OriginalReply0
QuietlyStakingvip
· 01-20 07:43
Modular architecture sounds comfortable, but I wonder if it will fall apart when implemented.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHustlervip
· 01-20 07:36
The idea of modularization is indeed excellent, but can Dusk really be implemented? It feels like another project just making empty promises.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainGossipervip
· 01-20 07:33
Wow, this line of thinking is indeed clear-headed. Modular division of labor is much better than forcing everything together.

To be honest, those projects that tried to handle privacy compliance and performance all at once before ended up failing on all three fronts.

Dusk's approach to splitting the execution layer, settlement layer, and data layer really seems to have found a good idea.

The main thing is that I think the "compliance anchor" design hits the mark. Privacy is private, but the audit trail must be clear. Only then can traditional finance accept it.

Just not sure if there will be other pitfalls once it's actually running... Can the interface verification efficiency between modules really reach the ideal level?

Let's wait for real-world testing data. Just looking at the design documents alone can easily lead to mistakes.

By the way, will this kind of approach become the standard architecture for public chains in the future?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin