Sometimes I think the real friction isn’t regulation or technology — it’s embarrassment.
Not scandal-level stuff. Just ordinary, human embarrassment.
Imagine a company paying vendors, negotiating contracts, moving treasury between accounts. None of it illegal. None of it secret. But still… not something you want permanently visible to competitors, customers, or random strangers with a block explorer.
Public-by-default sounds clean in crypto theory. In real operations, it’s awkward.
Finance has always relied on selective visibility. Auditors see one thing. Regulators see another. The public sees almost nothing. Not because people are hiding crimes — because businesses need room to operate without broadcasting every move.
Most blockchain solutions try to fix this afterward. Add a mixer. Add a permissioned layer. Add policy. It always feels like retrofitting privacy onto glass walls.
That’s why I’ve started thinking privacy has to be structural, not optional.
Infrastructure like @Vanarchain makes more sense to me when viewed that way. Not as a flashy chain, but as plumbing built for normal behavior — where users, brands, and institutions can transact quietly while still being accountable when required.
If regulated finance ever moves on-chain, it’ll be because the system feels boring and safe, not radical.
The people who adopt it won’t be ideologues. They’ll just be operators who don’t want their balance sheet on display.
