To be honest, I used to think that privacy means hiding everything. The less you show, the safer it is. At that time, it semed logical to me. But later I realized… it not that simple. Because in reality, hiding everything does not work. You have to prove it in some way or another - who you are, whether you are eligible or not, whether you are valid or not. This is where the old idea starts brak down a bit. Midnight made this place intersting to me. They do not actually take the “hide everything” approach. Rather, they take opposite - prove exactly what is needed… no more, no less. 🚀
I mean actually…
It sounds simple, but there is a subtle shift inside. Because here privcy and transparency not opposites of each other… Rather, controlled exposure is the real thing. Meaning… you not invisible, you are selective. But here big question also arises. Who will control selective part? User, protocol, or regulatory layer? Because as long this decision-making not neutral, privacy can very easily become controlled access. So Midnight's idea is strong, direction clear - no doubt. But in the end, the game get stuck in execution and governance. Maybe future will be neiher full privcy nor full transparency...
Instead, we will learn - what needs to be shown and what can be left unshown. 🚀