From a different perspective, why should we view blockchain transparency as a design flaw? It’s more like the early stages of internet development—where all data flows openly, not because engineers prefer transparency, but because security measures haven't yet become part of the infrastructure. Looking back, HTTPS is now standard on the web, and no one thinks it ruins the browsing experience. The development trajectory of on-chain privacy is, in a sense, replicating this process.



The real deeper issue lies in the friction coefficient. For innovative technology to truly take root, it must coexist harmoniously with the existing ecosystem. Once it demands developers to start from scratch, its adoption rate will plummet. Take projects building privacy infrastructure—smart approaches involve wrapping complex cryptographic tools like zero-knowledge proofs into EVM-compatible environments. This way, developers don’t need to become cryptography experts; they can simply call privacy functions directly. Just like Web2 developers enable HTTPS without needing to understand the details of TLS protocols.

Low-friction integration changes the entire game. Privacy is no longer just for niche applications like anonymous transfers; it can be seamlessly embedded into any DeFi protocol, on-chain game, or even DAO governance. Imagine an auction where all bids are thoroughly sealed before the end; or a derivatives contract where your risk exposure is only visible to the counterparty and the liquidator—this isn’t wishful thinking, it’s a natural extension of composability in the privacy domain.

When judging whether a privacy infrastructure has potential, it’s not just about what it hides. More importantly, it’s whether it can smoothly integrate into existing value networks. When technology truly becomes invisible behind the user experience, transforming into an intangible yet essential foundational layer, paradigm shifts happen quietly. This isn’t a disruptive revolution but a gradual evolution—making the on-chain world more refined and mature enough to carry the inherent complexity and secrecy of human economic activity.
View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
DeFi_Dad_Jokesvip
· 18h ago
The term "friction coefficient" is brilliant; it's basically saying don't dump the complexity of cryptography on the developers.
View OriginalReply0
AltcoinHuntervip
· 18h ago
Sounds good, but I've heard the theory that the friction coefficient is low too many times, and in the end, it's just the rhetoric of some L1 public chain enthusiasts [laughs and cry]. However, this time's approach to privacy infrastructure is indeed different, and it feels much more credible than some projects making up their own stories. The key still depends on who can actually deliver, not just talk.
View OriginalReply0
MemeKingNFTvip
· 18h ago
I like this statement. Low friction is the true moat; otherwise, even the best privacy solutions are just self-satisfaction.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleMistakervip
· 18h ago
Exactly right, the angle of the friction coefficient really hits the point, but I think the real issue now is that those privacy projects still have to prove themselves along the way that they are not helping with money laundering.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)