Last night I came across someone arguing again about whether “on-chain privacy is a sin.” Honestly, I feel pretty conflicted. Put simply, privacy is like fog on a bridge—it can block the wind, but it can also block your line of sight. Compliance is like a speed-limit sign: annoying, but not necessarily a bad thing. Don’t let ordinary users’ expectations run too romantic. On-chain isn’t an anonymous paradise; it’s more like a “traceable public ledger + whatever concealment you choose.” If you rely on concealment too much, you might end up paying extra bridge tolls, suffering delays, or even being stopped so someone can ask you a couple of questions.

I once wanted to try a new privacy tool. I watched the tutorial three times, but I still only understood about half of it. Then my wallet kept popping up signature requests… I hesitated, and with a single nervous slip of my hand, I felt something was off. In the end, it was just one thought: if you don’t understand it, then stop and don’t do anything for now. Later, when I looked back, I saw that the project had even changed its rules—glad I didn’t force it at the time.

It also made me think about how on-chain games collapse—like inflation plus studios plus a coin-price spiral. Honestly, that’s the same kind of expectation management: don’t count on the “system taking care of small players.” Anyway, what I care about more now is whether every step of asset migration can be explained clearly; if it can’t, then just take one step less. That’s it for now.