2026-01-06 01:24:56

Biometric authentication through fingerprints or eye scans is becoming mainstream, but it comes with real risks. Users expose sensitive data that, once compromised, can't be changed like a password. Scammers and data breaches turn these physical identifiers into permanent vulnerabilities.

Zero-knowledge proof technology offers a different path forward. It lets users prove their identity without revealing the actual biometric data—keeping fingerprints, iris patterns, and other sensitive information locked away while still enabling secure verification. The system protects user privacy at its core.

Building privacy-first solutions requires rethinking incentive structures. Not every protocol needs a token attached; sometimes the strongest security model is the simplest one. Focus on protection first, tokenomics second.

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ConsensusBot

· 01-09 01:21

Biometric leaks are truly over if they happen, unlike changing a password which is so much simpler. That hits hard. Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed impressive, but very few projects can actually implement them effectively... Not every blockchain needs to issue tokens; sometimes, good security design itself is the strongest selling point.

View OriginalReply0

GasOptimizer

· 01-08 17:55

Biometric data has once again failed, and there's no way to redo it. This point really can't be overstated... Zero-knowledge proofs sound reliable, like a privacy iron gate. --- Another narrative that tries to save itself with tokens. Honestly, it's about doing subtraction—removing complexity makes it safer. This is a bit counterintuitive. --- Fingerprint leaks = permanent exposure; passwords can still be changed. That difference is truly impactful. Web3 needs to wake up. --- Zero-knowledge proofs can run without involving tokens. What does that mean? Many projects are just disguising a funding scheme with a privacy layer. --- So the question is, with so many projects currently using biometric data, how costly would it be to upgrade? --- The idea of not exposing actual data should have been proposed long ago. How many people could have avoided data breaches if it had been implemented earlier? --- This is true "user protection"—not the stuff that blows privacy out of proportion while mining data every day.

View OriginalReply0

TokenCreatorOP

· 01-06 01:55

Zero-knowledge proofs are truly amazing; once biometric data is leaked, there's really no rescue. But to be honest, most projects still prioritize token accumulation, and security comes second... Privacy-first sounds great, but how many have actually been implemented? Passwords can be changed, but fingerprints can't—this point hits too close to home. Don't overcomplicate things; simple and secure solutions are actually the best.

View OriginalReply0

unrekt.eth

· 01-06 01:51

Biometric data once leaked, there's really no going back, and that's the most terrifying part. Zero-knowledge proof is indeed an excellent idea. But honestly, very few projects can truly prioritize privacy; most are just thinking about how to issue tokens and make a quick profit. Biometric data is like your DNA—once leaked, you'll be targeted for life. Passwords can still be reset, but this is something that really needs to be taken seriously. It's the same theory again, but the key question is who can truly implement it without selling data? Zero-knowledge proof sounds perfect, but how many have actually achieved it? Most are just empty talk. Protocols that prioritize privacy over tokens? They probably can't even raise funds.

View OriginalReply0

PretendingSerious

· 01-06 01:51

Biometric authentication being compromised once means game over; this issue definitely needs to be taken seriously. Zero-knowledge proofs sound promising, but can they really be used on a large scale? It still feels a bit distant. --- Another bunch of protocols without tokens... That's a bit idealistic. Who in reality would invest in something without incentives? --- Once a fingerprint is leaked, it's permanently compromised. Just thinking about it is scary. Someone should have researched privacy-first solutions long ago. --- ZKP sounds cool, but I wonder how efficient it is in real-world scenarios. Will it turn out to be a gimmick again? --- The strongest security model being the simplest? That’s not wrong, but unfortunately, the industry has never believed in that. --- Biometric data is inherently a double-edged sword. It's good to see more serious discussions about privacy now. --- A security solution that doesn't require tokens sounds like a pipe dream... but if it can really be achieved, it would be impressive. Still, I worry it might just be another PPT project. --- Passwords can be changed, but biometrics can't. I agree with this logic, so fundamentally, we need to change our approach.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien

· 01-06 01:40

Biometric data, once leaked, is useless. This should have been emphasized long ago. Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed a good approach. Not everything needs to be tokenized. That really hits the point. If your fingerprint is stolen, you can't just get a new one, but if your password is leaked, you can change it. That's the fundamental difference. Privacy first > Token economy. Simple and straightforward. I like this way of thinking. Biometrics have been popular for so long, yet security risks are rarely seriously discussed... This article explains it thoroughly. Zero-knowledge proofs often seem overly flashy in many projects, with few truly practical applications. That's right. Compared to complex token mechanisms, a secure system is the real king. Your fingerprint is like your ID card. Once lost, it's basically hopeless.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-e87b21ee

· 01-06 01:39

Biometric leaks mean permanent damage, and that's the real problem. Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed a clever idea, but can they really be implemented? Honestly, those projects are still just thinking about how to issue tokens. Who really cares about privacy? Having your iris stolen is much scarier than a password leak; the most terrifying thing is something that can't be reset. This is what Web3 should be doing—stop with the flashy shitcoins all day. Can protocols without tokens survive? Let's talk about privacy after they survive, brother. Zero-knowledge proofs sound good, but does the market have purchasing power... I doubt it.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleSurfer

· 01-06 01:38

Once biometric data is leaked, it's really game over. Passwords can still be changed, but can fingerprints be changed... The idea of zero-knowledge proofs is truly brilliant; it can verify without exposing the original data, which is quite impressive. But honestly, how many projects today truly prioritize privacy? Most are still thinking about how to exploit and generate tokens. That’s the right path, right? Not everything has to be tied to a token model.

View OriginalReply0