Recently, I have been focusing on a seriously overlooked issue—the decision-making process behind the upgrades and parameter adjustments of the Dusk chain.

Honestly, for an L1 that aims to pursue both privacy and compliance, technical prowess alone is not enough. Institutions don’t care how advanced your technology is; they want to know: Is your decision-making process clear? Can you predict outcomes? Who is responsible if something goes wrong?

Currently, Dusk’s upgrade pace is quite tight. The December DuskDS update was pushed directly by the team at a predetermined time. This initial approach works fine and is highly efficient. But the problem arises—when the chain is handling sensitive assets and critical operations, external participants will inevitably ask: Who has the authority to decide parameters? How are upgrade priorities determined? In case of disagreements, is there a single decision-maker or a formal governance process? This isn’t just about decentralization slogans; it’s a real risk.

I am particularly concerned with three details.

First, do stakers and validators truly have a say in major upgrades—I’m not talking about forum chatter, but whether the institutional framework can influence decisions. Second, are protocol parameter changes (staking rules, reward distribution, execution limits) transparent in advance, providing the market with enough time to react? Third, and most importantly—if an upgrade goes wrong, is there a clear rollback plan, rather than just accepting defeat?

These factors directly determine whether Dusk will be viewed as a continuously operating system or merely an experimental playground in the long run. Many projects don’t care about these issues when they are hot, because the market trusts the team. But once the hype subsides, governance becomes the only substitute for trust.

My current assessment of whether Dusk can develop steadily largely depends on whether it is willing to bring these behind-the-scenes decision-making processes to the surface, transforming them into tangible, visible systems. How strong the technology is isn’t the most important; what matters most is whether, when doubts arise, you have enough transparent decision records to respond with.