2026-01-15 01:40:33

ZEC and regulatory clarity—or lack thereof.

The SEC wrapped up its investigation involving the Zcash Foundation. Case closed, officially speaking. But here's the thing: the public statements leave everything frustratingly vague. Nobody can pin down exactly what allegations were being investigated or what specific concerns prompted the whole thing in the first place.

Meanwhile, the industry keeps circling back to compliance frameworks and AML protocols like they're the universal answer. Yet when actual regulatory outcomes come down, the messaging remains murky. It's the kind of ambiguity that keeps projects guessing about where the real boundaries actually lie.

ZEC3,36%

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FlashLoanLord

· 01-18 01:40

Is this survey over? But nothing was clarified, isn't this just a waste of effort? Regulation is just playing Tai Chi, claiming compliance, but when asked, they are clueless. This time, ZEC has really been messed up badly; who knows where the red line actually is? The industry has been guessing riddles, while the SEC just hides behind and laughs. Basically, it's selective enforcement; anyway, small projects have to be on edge. This kind of vague policy is the most disgusting; how can people feel safe to participate? Compliance framework? Joke, no one really knows where the true standards are. That's why everyone is holding steady; who dares to make a move?

View OriginalReply0

MEVEye

· 01-18 00:56

This vague approach is really incredible. The SEC says case closed and it's closed, but they haven't explained anything clearly? This "silent" flowchart from regulatory agencies is truly laughable... Compliance framework? Anti-money laundering? Sounds good, but when it comes to critical moments, it's all foggy. SEC: The case is closed. Us: What was closed? Why was it closed? Unbelievable. The fate of privacy coins is just being "obscured" by this ambiguity, it's hilarious. Regulatory agencies love this routine—closing cases without explaining the reasons, leaving you to guess. ZEC is really being grilled over the fire in this round; with nothing clear, how are we supposed to proceed? It's that old trick of "no clear guidance" again, the whole industry is gambling... Honestly, this kind of regulatory attitude is the worst—preferring ambiguity over giving a clear answer.

View OriginalReply0

unrekt.eth

· 01-15 02:10

This is just outrageous. The SEC's entire investigation is like navigating a maze, and even after closing the case, it's still unclear what exactly happened... Compliance frameworks are praised every day, but when it comes to critical moments, they hide and cover up. How are project teams supposed to deal with this? ZEC this time is somewhat unfair; even the regulatory authorities can't figure it out themselves. Here we go again, right... regulators just love to play this way. To put it simply, ambiguity is the best control tool. This is the most frustrating part of Web3 — always guessing the rules.

View OriginalReply0

Blockwatcher9000

· 01-15 02:09

This survey ended in a way that's hard to describe, saying nothing at all All the words were swallowed, I really can't understand who the real winner is Why do regulatory authorities love to speak in riddles, the project teams are stuck tightly Where did all the clarity go? Anyway, it's not in this statement Where is the industry headed? This kind of vague boundary is really frustrating to death

View OriginalReply0

UncleLiquidation

· 01-15 02:04

The investigation is over but nothing was clarified? This tactic is brilliant... How difficult must it be for the project team? --- It's that old saying again, anti-money laundering, anti-money laundering. How exactly to do it? Still walking in the dark. --- SEC's approach is also brilliant. They close the case without explaining the reasons, just leave a "We have finished our investigation," industry must be very confused. --- Ambiguity is the greatest destructive force. Projects simply cannot lay the groundwork. --- Is this the art of regulation? Saying nothing is the same as not saying anything... ZEC probably feels even more frustrated. --- Anyway, no matter what, the compliance framework must be in place, but who knows if it's enough?

View OriginalReply0

WinterWarmthCat

· 01-15 02:01

The SEC's move is incredible. The case is closed but nothing is clearly explained... The project team must be very uncomfortable. --- Basically, it's regulators playing Tai Chi. Anti-money laundering and compliance frameworks are loudly proclaimed, but when it comes to the actual outcome, they just shrug it off. --- The ZEC case is a typical Schrödinger's cat situation—it's both closed and not closed. --- Ambiguity is the biggest trap. Who the tm knows if it will be dug up again next time? The project team has no sense of boundaries at all. --- Another round of regulators saying "We are taking this seriously," but in reality, they haven't done anything... It's hard to bear. --- The compliance framework is useless. Doesn't this just prove it? --- The entire industry is playing riddles, and the SEC loves this routine. --- Honestly, this kind of vagueness is even more uncomfortable than direct fines.

View OriginalReply0

ThesisInvestor

· 01-15 02:01

How did this muddled case just get closed... Is the SEC playing tai chi here? --- Same old story, compliance compliance, but they didn't clarify anything, how difficult must it be for the project team --- Honestly, this kind of ambiguity is probably intentionally making things difficult for innovative projects --- Privacy coins are forever a pain, ZEC has been secretly regulated this time --- No one knows the real reason... This is outrageous --- Instead of saying the case is closed, it's more like it’s been shelved; anyway, the information is all foggy --- Regulation is like this, playing with confusing eyes, in the end, you just have to listen to me --- The compliance framework is useless; they don't even tell you where the red lines are --- This is true "agnosticism" style regulation, quite clever --- Wait, can the SEC case be so vague when it’s closed? Laughing to death, who are they protecting?

View OriginalReply0