I'll be honest — When a regulated fund settles a trade onchain, who exactly is supposed to see the details? The counterparty? The regulator? Every competitor watching the mempool? That is where things start to feel uncomfortable.

In traditional finance, disclosure is selective. Auditors see one layer. Regulators see another. The public sees almost nothing. On most blockchains, it is the opposite. Transparency is default, and privacy is something you bolt on later. That sounds principled, but in practice it creates friction. Institutions hesitate because full transparency exposes positions, strategy, and client relationships. Regulators hesitate because opaque add-ons feel like loopholes rather than controls.

This is why privacy by exception rarely works. When privacy is optional, it looks suspicious. When it is embedded into the base layer design, it becomes predictable infrastructure. Not secrecy, but controlled visibility. Systems like @Vanarchain , if treated as settlement infrastructure rather than speculative rails, need to think in those terms. Compliance is not a feature toggle. It is a structural condition for participation.

I have seen enough financial systems patched after the fact to doubt retrofits. Privacy by design might not solve trust overnight, but without it, regulated capital will simply stay where disclosure rules are clearer and operational risk is lower.

#Vanar $VANRY