I believe all public blockchains will eventually integrate or implement privacy transfer, privacy computation, and identity solutions at some level. The key is not whether it can be done, but how much the cost will be and whether users will actually use it.



The debate between "scaling first and then adding privacy" and "adding privacy first and then scaling" has been ongoing. Each chain is weighing: should it build on a transparent foundation with post-hoc privacy patches, or consider privacy protection from the underlying architecture and gradually overcome performance bottlenecks? The former is faster but may create pitfalls, while the latter is more stable but may not outperform competitors. Which path will win is still uncertain.
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
  • 10
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
TestnetNomadvip
· 01-06 15:23
That's right, but users don't really care about privacy; they're just thinking about how to quickly arbitrage.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHuntressvip
· 01-06 11:25
Listen, this is a false proposition. Data shows that most users don't care about privacy at all; they just want to transfer money quickly and cheaply. No matter how good the privacy features are, if no one uses them, it's pointless.
View OriginalReply0
RooftopVIPvip
· 01-03 16:56
Honestly, scalability and privacy are like fish and bear paws; users won't really pay for these two things, they just want to get them for free.
View OriginalReply0
ShamedApeSellervip
· 01-03 16:56
Honestly, who is really using privacy features? Most people just want to trade quickly and make money. Privacy sounds fancy, but users simply don't buy into it.
View OriginalReply0
FancyResearchLabvip
· 01-03 16:55
Luban No.7 is working on construction again. Theoretically, it should be feasible, but will users really pay this privacy tax?
View OriginalReply0
GhostChainLoyalistvip
· 01-03 16:51
In simple terms, it's a game between cost and benefit; there aren't that many users who actually utilize privacy features.
View OriginalReply0
DAOplomacyvip
· 01-03 16:48
ngl, the whole "privacy later vs privacy first" debate kinda misses the point... historical precedent suggests whichever chain actually gets users to *pay* for privacy wins, not whoever ships it first. path dependency is real here.
Reply0
BoredApeResistancevip
· 01-03 16:42
Basically, it's still a cost issue; users simply won't pay for privacy.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityWitchvip
· 01-03 16:30
Honestly, most blockchains are suffering from procrastination when it comes to privacy. When users actually need it, they rush to patch things up, and the results are often far from ideal...
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Pin