The real issue with how people think about privacy on-chain? Treating it like a simple binary—either fully private or fully transparent. That's the wrong frame entirely. What actually matters is programmable privacy that adapts to what users genuinely need. The key shift: giving data control back to users themselves. You strip away that dependency on 'trust' systems, and suddenly the whole model changes. Users manage their own privacy preferences with flexibility baked into the protocol layer, not forced into rigid all-or-nothing scenarios.

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
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
TommyTeacher1vip
· 9h ago
The binary opposition approach indeed should be discarded, but I really do support the idea of programmable privacy.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropNinjavip
· 11h ago
Dualism should indeed be discarded; programmable privacy is the way forward.
View OriginalReply0
RugpullAlertOfficervip
· 16h ago
The argument about binary privacy has long been outdated; programmable privacy is the right path. However, the problem is that most protocols currently cannot achieve true flexibility, they are just a facade.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeSobbervip
· 16h ago
The dualism approach should have been thrown into the trash long ago. Programmable privacy is the right path. Thinking about it this way, it's indeed perfect.
View OriginalReply0
LightningLadyvip
· 16h ago
Dualism should have been thrown into the trash long ago; programmable privacy is the real way out.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)