I was digging through Dusk's wallet docs and kept getting stuck on one thing: the network runs two separate transaction models side by side, a shielded one and a transparent one, and the wallet makes you pick per transaction which mode to use. $DUSK #Dusk @Dusk Most privacy chains treat confidentiality as the default state you opt out of. Dusk does the opposite in practice — you have to actively choose privacy each time, and that choice has real friction attached to it, since the proving keys for shielded transfers run into the hundreds of megabytes and have to be generated or fetched before a proof can even be built. What stood out to me is that this isn't a UX oversight, it's the actual design bet: institutions doing regulated settlement don't want blanket privacy, they want privacy that can be selectively disclosed and audited on demand, so forcing the choice at the transaction level is arguably more honest than chains that market "private by default" and then quietly build in backdoors for compliance later. But it does mean early users experience Dusk less like a privacy coin and more like a settlement rail that happens to support shielding. I keep wondering whether that framing holds once actual trading volume shows up, or whether users just default to whichever mode is cheaper and the privacy option sits unused.