Blockchain has been a topic of keen interest since its inception. Many question whether its anonymity fosters illegal financing, while others worry that using cryptocurrency for payments might expose unnecessary personal information.

The Ethereum Foundation is Prioritizing Privacy

Who Does Privacy Matter To?

Privacy matters to you, to me, and to every one of us. When you hand over your data to third parties (Google, Meta, X), can you be certain they won’t leak your information? Why do we need privacy?

Many assume that blockchain is inherently a public ledger where anyone can scrutinize the transaction details of any address. But what if that address has already been exposed—declared as yours, for instance? This was precisely one of the criticisms leveled against Bitcoin in its early days.

Although novel cryptographic techniques (MPC, ZKP, FHE, TEE) have emerged, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) remain the most widely adopted. ZKP allows verification of a statement’s truth without revealing the underlying information. For example, how do you prove you have the key to a room without showing it? If both you and another person know there’s a specific item inside, retrieving that item would serve as proof of your access.

Today, we won’t delve into technicalities—I’m no expert, after all. Let’s return to the core question: Who does privacy matter to?

The answer is unequivocally: every one of us. We don’t want our sensitive information leaked, nor can we trust any centralized service provider to safeguard it 100%. In 2021, the educational platform Xuexitong was exposed for a data breach affecting at least 100 million university students. I suspect much of the data in underground “social engineering databases” traces back to this incident.

While many companies include privacy agreements in their apps, claiming collected data won’t be leaked, even budgeting apps often demand access to your phone contacts. In 2018, Facebook suffered a hack due to security flaws, compromising 30 million users’ data.

Collecting data isn’t illegal—companies may do so to improve services. But increasingly, firms gather information irrelevant to their offerings, fueling public skepticism toward modern enterprises.

Misconception: Blockchain Enables Crime

Data from U.S. and blockchain analytics firms show illicit financing via blockchain is far lower than with fiat currencies. (Source: http://www.trmlabs.com/files/report-2025-crypto-crime-report)

What fuels this misconception? Here are my neutral observations:

1. Challenging Fiat Currency: Bitcoin’s debut saw many nations refusing to recognize it as either currency or asset.
2. Pseudo-Blockchain Scams: By “pseudo-blockchain,” I refer to fraudulent platforms that mimic blockchain but operate on centralized servers with fabricated data to lure investors—think pig-butchering schemes. These have wrongly equated blockchain with fraud in public perception.
3. Misinterpreted Anonymity: Critics highlight anonymity’s risks while ignoring transparency’s constraints. Funds from illegal accounts ultimately funnel through centralized platforms.

Recently, exemplary blockchain firms have balanced privacy with transparency. Contrary to popular belief, privacy and transparency aren’t mutually exclusive—they complement each other.

Privacy merely prevents unnecessary data exposure. Imagine paying with crypto: a cashier could view your entire transaction history. Wouldn’t it be better if technology limited them to seeing only your purchases at their store?

Blockchain’s journey is long, and our approach should be measured—neither opposing it due to others’ biases nor joining out of FOMO-driven hype.