In the crypto industry, the word "compliance" has been almost overused. You'll see various projects proudly displaying it on their official websites and carefully outlining it in their roadmaps. But in systems that are truly operational, it might just be a superficial process shell, with the core logic unchanged. Institutional investors see through this game clearly, and ultimately, these so-called "compliance stories" can only be dismissed as mere talk.

The key difference between Dusk and projects like it lies in one crucial point: it doesn't treat regulation as an external force but directly integrates it into the protocol design.

Just look at its collaboration with NPEX. This isn't a partnership where they just slap on a name; it's a fully regulated trading and issuance system. MTF, brokers, ECSP, plus the upcoming DLT-TSS—these licenses themselves represent different financial roles and responsibilities. In traditional finance, these boundaries determine whether capital can enter, how much can flow in, and who is responsible if issues arise.

The critical point here is that Dusk doesn't see these licenses as "get-out-of-jail-free cards." Instead, it pushes back against them—how should the system be designed to match these licenses? Which parts must be traceable? Which processes need to leave a trail? What information can be verified under the regulatory framework? These questions aren't just written into a compliance manual; they are embedded directly into the operational logic of the chain. In other words, it's not about running the chain first and then figuring out how to add regulation later; from the start, it assumes it will be regulated.

Many people are inherently resistant to regulation, thinking it stifles innovation. But from an institutional perspective, it's quite the opposite. The existence of regulation isn't so much about limiting what you can do but about defining the scope within which you can act confidently.

Therefore, you'll notice that when Dusk talks about compliance, its tone remains very steady. It doesn't boast "we are the most compliant" nor exaggerate "regulatory dividends." Instead, it genuinely incorporates the regulatory realities into the chain. This approach might not be popular in the short term, but if the goal is to support real financial activities rather than chasing temporary trends, this is almost the only viable path.