Recently, people keep asking, "How much privacy is still possible on the chain?" My own expectation is quite simple: assume no privacy by default, privacy is something you have to fight for additionally, and it can be cut off at any time by rules or entry-layer restrictions. To put it plainly, on-chain is more like a public ledger; just because addresses are not real names doesn't mean no one can piece you back together, especially once you start depositing or withdrawing funds through centralized channels, the compliance line follows you.

In a certain region, as taxes and compliance tighten, the first thing that changes isn't actually on the chain, but people's mindset: a slightly slower withdrawal, an extra review, and many start self-censoring, hesitating for a long time before transferring. Conversely, if restrictions loosen a bit, people think "it should be fine," and then all behaviors pile back onto the same path... It's quite human, but also quite dangerous.

For ordinary users, I think don't expect "complete anonymity." A more realistic approach is to treat privacy as part of cost and risk management—expose as little as possible, and don't connect all identity clues into one string. Don't oppose compliance either; assume that the boundaries will shift toward stricter regulations.

What I fear most isn't actually missing out on opportunities, but in the next upgrade/governance game, the rules change quietly while I still operate out of old habits.