Only when placing @MidnightNetwork in failure scenarios do I see that the issue is not about privacy.
The current narrative is quite clear: if programmable confidentiality and selective disclosure can be achieved, then blockchain will become more suitable for serious use cases. Sensitive data is no longer exposed, and from there, adoption will come naturally. This perspective implicitly considers privacy as a purely upgraded form.
But the reality is not that simple.
When execution and state shift to a private state, visibility is no longer the default. The system can still prove correctness through cryptographic mechanisms, but the process leading to that result can no longer be publicly observed. And this difference only truly reveals itself when there is an incident.
A bug on a public chain can be complex, but it can still be inspected. A bug in a private system is the opposite: harder to trace, harder to explain, and in many cases depends on access rights to fully understand.
The noteworthy point is not whether the system operates correctly or not, but rather that the method of verification is changing. Instead of relying on public observational capabilities, verification has shifted to depend on proof and controlled disclosure mechanisms. Privacy not only conceals data but also hides the failure process.
This leads to a subtle but important shift in the trust model: from open visibility to cryptographic correctness combined with controlled disclosure.
And the remaining question is, when evidence is no longer the default public thing, where does real trust lie?
