The real friction shows up the moment a compliance officer asks: if we settle on-chain, who exactly can see our positions tomorrow morning?
That question alone has stalled more pilots than technical limitations ever did. Regulated finance runs on disclosure but controlled disclosure. Public blockchains, by design, expose flows, balances, and counterparties in ways that don’t map cleanly to fiduciary duty, market conduct rules, or even basic competitive logic. It’s not about secrecy. It’s about managing information responsibly.
Most attempts to fix this feel improvised. Privacy gets bolted on later special permissions, side systems, legal wrappers. It creates operational drag. Institutions end up reconciling off-chain anyway, layering manual oversight on top of automated settlement. Costs creep up. Risk teams stay uneasy. Regulators remain cautious.
Privacy by design feels less ideological and more structural. If sensitive data isn’t public by default, compliance becomes simpler, not harder. Audit access can still exist, but without broadcasting strategy or client exposure to the market. That balance is what regulated infrastructure actually needs.
For something like @Vanarchain to matter beyond gaming or brands, it has to function as quiet plumbing predictable, compliant, boring in the right ways.
Who would use it? Institutions that want efficiency without reputational risk. It might work if privacy is embedded at the protocol layer. It fails if privacy is optional or cosmetic.
