I want to discuss privacy from a more straightforward perspective. Usually, we see blockchain as a "big mouth system"—it records everything, makes everything public, and invites scrutiny. But in scenarios involving regulated assets and institutional funds, the problem arises: the chain's mouth is too big, and things that should be hidden are all revealed.

This is exactly what a certain foundation is working on—teaching the chain to know when to keep quiet. Note that this doesn't mean making the chain unverifiable, but rather helping it understand when to keep secrets and when to speak up, with clear boundaries when it does.

It sounds like a word game, but this is truly my understanding. Discussions about privacy in the crypto space often go to extremes—either hiding everything or making everything fully public. The regulatory logic in the real world is completely different—you can hide from the public, but you must prove during audits that you haven't lied, and the scope of what you prove should be just right.

The problem is, "learning to keep quiet" is fundamentally against human nature for blockchain. The innate trait of blockchain is transparency and openness, which enables everyone to verify. Changing this instinct is much more difficult than simply adding new features.

From an informational perspective, the most basic privacy approach is to encrypt and hide content. But hiding content is just the beginning; the real challenge comes afterward—how do you verify if you've hidden something? This is the core dilemma of privacy in blockchain.