I have written about my views on Dusk Foundation several times before, and each time I finish, I feel a sense of lingering curiosity. It's not that I want to hype it up, but I realize I keep circling around the same point—the core of that circle is called "boundaries."

Boundaries may sound unsexy, even disappointing. But when applied to financial scenarios, they become vividly concrete. Who can operate what, who is kept outside the door. Which data is inherently opaque, and which data must be verifiable at certain points. Money flowing from Account A to Account B, rules must follow the flow. When something goes wrong, the responsibility chain must be clear enough to identify the person involved. Quickly running through these issues in your mind, you realize—boundaries are not虚的; they are the bottom line for the survival of financial systems.

An old problem in the crypto industry: treating "freedom" as a万能药. Permissionless, fully transparent, modular composition. Sounds tempting, but in real finance, these words without preconditions often turn into pitfalls. You can't allow anyone to move any assets at any time, nor can you permanently post all transaction details on the chain for public viewing, and it's impossible for a system in a fully open state to manage regulated assets. Finance is not a tool to establish stances; its sole purpose is to enable strangers to exchange under clear rules, to settle, to reconcile, and to clarify logic when disagreements arise. The closer you get to this goal, the more urgent the need for boundaries.

I think the truly interesting part of Dusk Foundation is not in stacking cryptographic jargon, but in what it does—writing boundaries directly into the code itself, rather than just in terms and policies.