The question I keep running into is not whether regulated finance allows privacy, but why ordinary, compliant activity so often feels exposed by default. A business sending stablecoin payments does not want its cash flow patterns public. A payment processor does not want volumes and counterparties scraped in real time. Regulators, for their part, want oversight, not a permanent live feed of raw data that obscures actual risk.
Most blockchain systems get this backwards. They start with full transparency and then try to patch privacy in later. The result is a mess of exceptions: special contracts, permissioned routes, off-chain agreements. Each one works in isolation, but together they raise costs, add legal ambiguity, and make systems harder to reason about. Compliance becomes a process of explaining why something should not be visible, instead of proving that rules are being followed.
Privacy by design is less ideological than it sounds. It is about deciding upfront who needs to see what, when, and why. Auditability does not require constant exposure. It requires correctness, traceability, and the ability to intervene when something breaks.
That framing is where @Plasma fits best: as settlement infrastructure that assumes discretion is normal, especially when money is operational rather than speculative.
Who would use this? Payment firms, treasuries, and stablecoin-heavy markets already working around today’s exposure. Why might it work? Because it aligns with how regulated money actually moves. What would make it fail? Complexity, regulatory mismatch, or mistaking transparency for trust.
@Plasma
