What happens when a bank settles a transaction on a public chain and suddenly its counterparties, liquidity flows, and treasury movements become searchable data?
That’s the tension. Regulated finance runs on selective disclosure. Auditors see one layer. Regulators see another. The public sees almost nothing. Not because institutions are hiding wrongdoing, but because markets function on controlled information. If every move is instantly visible, pricing power shifts, strategies leak, and risk increases.
Most blockchain systems were built with radical transparency as a virtue. It made sense when the goal was censorship resistance. But when the same rails are used for payroll, trade finance, or stablecoin settlement, full transparency becomes operational exposure.
So teams try to patch it. They add private transactions as an option. They promise compliance tooling on top. Yet optional privacy feels unstable. If it’s not foundational, it can be switched off, misconfigured, or challenged legally.
Privacy by design means the system assumes layered access from the start. Disclosure is structured, not improvised. Compliance is embedded, not attached.
Infrastructure like @Vanarchain only matters if it reduces the everyday friction between settlement, law, and reputation risk. Payment providers, brands, and regulated issuers would use it if it quietly protects counterparties while remaining auditable. It fails if regulators distrust it or if privacy becomes a loophole instead of a discipline.
