2026-01-19 19:22:25

At 3 a.m., I made a cross-chain transfer on Ethereum. The moment I confirmed the transaction, I realized a terrifying fact—my transaction path, amount, and associated addresses were all exposed on the blockchain explorer. Although wallet addresses are anonymous, anyone can piece together my financial situation using on-chain data analysis tools. It felt like being in a transparent room, stared at by countless people.

This exposes the core contradiction of current blockchain technology: we seek decentralization and freedom, yet we completely abandon privacy rights.

Later, I discovered a different approach. Some projects are doing one thing: allowing users to choose who to be transparent with. This phrase sounds simple, but it changed my understanding of the crypto world.

They use a technology called PLONK, whose core idea is this—proving that you have sufficient assets and are compliant, without revealing specific amounts. Traditional on-chain verification involves putting all data in the sunlight, whereas PLONK's approach is: verifiers can only see a "pass/fail" result, not your actual data.

What's more interesting is that this system grants different permissions to users and regulators:
• For ordinary users—transaction details are fully encrypted
• For regulatory authorities—holding the key allows them to penetrate the data for review

This way, user privacy is protected while compliance requirements are met. Not all privacy needs to be hidden from everyone; instead, it can be precisely controlled over who can see what. This approach opened my eyes to a new possibility: privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive but can coexist.

The future of blockchain may not be choosing between privacy or transparency, but enabling everyone to have the power to choose.

ETH-0.55%

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

EternalMiner

· 7h ago

It's only at 3 a.m. that I realize transparency equals being cut... PLONK is indeed somewhat interesting. The choice is in the hands of users, which is true decentralization. Regulators want to investigate, go ahead. We're not afraid of anything; privacy is in our own control. Wait, who holds the keys? Isn't this still a trust issue? It's called a choice in a nice way, but in a harsh way, it's just compromise. PLONK sounds cool, but how many projects are actually willing to implement it? Privacy and transparency at the same time, sounds like a dream... but in reality? The right to choose is indeed tempting, provided there's no backdoor inserted. This should have existed a long time ago; blockchain has been bottlenecked for so many years. If this can be pushed forward, regulatory agencies might also feel at ease. In simple terms, it's fine-grained permission management, something the internet has long since learned.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainBouncer

· 7h ago

I understand the fear at 3 a.m., the feeling of one-click bankruptcy exposure is truly intense. Wait, the PLONK permission hierarchy sounds pretty good, finally someone thought of this direction. Regulators have keys to access data? Who should we trust then... Can privacy and compliance truly coexist perfectly? It still seems like someone has to compromise. I've always thought that the transparency of blockchain is a myth; things that need protection still should be protected. Agreed, the right to choose is the key, much better than being forcibly fully exposed. This article precisely addresses the most painful aspect of Web3 right now; I've also had that feeling.

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForMemes

· 7h ago

Discovering at 3 a.m. that you've been fully exposed online is really frightening... but the PLONK logic is indeed clever. Wait, isn't this just trying to make us believe that with a key from regulators, it's safe? Still a bit cowardly. It would be great if privacy could truly be optional, but in reality, no one gives you that choice. Another seemingly perfect yet actually compromise-filled solution. This is Web3, always dancing between freedom and censorship. Finally, there's a project that asks users if they want to be fully exposed. PLONK sounds fancy, but can it really prevent data analysis? I don't believe it. Honestly, it's still a choice, just with more options.

View OriginalReply0

JustAnotherWallet

· 7h ago

I understand the fear at 3 a.m., but to be honest, PLONK still sounds a bit utopian. Wait, you said regulators have key escrow for censorship... so is this privacy really privacy? Feels like it's being sold in a different form again. Having a choice sounds good, but the key is that there really has to be a choice, right? By the way, will implementing this be ten thousand times harder than writing a white paper? Is this our compromise plan? There's a bit of a difference between accepting being watched and truly being free.

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 7h ago

I understand the fear at 3 a.m., but can we really trust the PLONK system... If regulators have the keys, isn't that just a new form of centralization? --- Transparent rooms are indeed uncomfortable, but the idea of selective privacy is quite interesting; it just feels like we need to keep observing. --- Finally, someone has said it—anonymous addresses can't prevent chain analysis at all. I've wanted to complain about this for a long time. --- Who should we choose to be transparent with? It sounds wonderful, but in practice... it's probably just a bunch of new trust issues. --- This is the kind of encryption spirit I want: control back in my hands, not a black-and-white choice. --- PLONK sounds high-level just by its name, but can it really solve the anxiety at 3 a.m.? It feels more like psychological reassurance. --- Turning "either/or" into options sounds good... but I'm just worried that in the end, it's still the people with more power who get to decide.

View OriginalReply0

DefiPlaybook

· 7h ago

According to on-chain data, privacy leakage risk is indeed an invisible killer of the current TVL growth. It is worth noting that the adoption rate of zero-knowledge proof schemes like PLONK remains below 15%, but from a technical architecture perspective, the selectively transparent permission model indeed solves the traditional chain's "all or nothing" dilemma.

View OriginalReply0

Onenight

· 7h ago

Why not just use XMR directly? Everyone knows what to buy now on ETH. Some bridges even record IP addresses😂.

View OriginalReply0

Liquidated_Larry

· 7h ago

Once again, this set makes me wonder: who am I choosing to be transparent with? It sounds like a solution, but in reality, it's still betting on the reliability of regulatory authorities. --- 3 a.m. anxiety about transferring funds haha, I feel you, but can we really trust PLONK? --- The right to choose? Bro, you're too optimistic. In the end, it's still about handing over the keys to some institution. The essence hasn't changed. --- Sounds good, but it's actually just leaving a backdoor for regulators. Privacy isn't really solved. --- Wait, does this mean I can hide from ordinary people but be transparent to the SEC? What kind of privacy is that haha. --- Awesome, someone finally thought of this approach, a hundred times better than now. --- Don't worry about the technical details first. The key question is: who holds the keys? If it's the project team, then it's over. --- This logic is actually about tiered privacy. I just want to ask—who sets this tiering? --- Interesting, but I still don't trust any "right to choose." In the end, it will definitely be forcibly investigated. --- PLONK sounds like a patch for regulators; users don't really gain much privacy.

View OriginalReply0