These past two days, there’s been another heated argument in the group over whether “on-chain privacy” is truly a sin. Listening to it makes me want to laugh: ordinary users shouldn’t treat themselves like spies, and they definitely shouldn’t treat themselves like invisible people. To put it plainly, your wallet address isn’t an ID card—but if someone really sets out to track you, that little bit of “anonymity” on-chain is only like a sun hat; it can’t block the rain.

As for this “compliance” line, it’s probably something like: when the platform asks you to explain the source, don’t pretend you’re dead. On-chain tools can be used, but don’t expect them to take the blame for you. People talking in a fiery, hype-filled way about modularity and the DA layer narrative is normal, and it’s also normal for users to look confused—how the underlying pieces are assembled doesn’t matter as much as the fact that you click to confirm, because the traces left behind might last longer than you think.

Now I’m lowering my goal: I’m not going after “absolute privacy,” I’m going after “not exposing yourself in an absurd way.” If you can spread things out, spread them out; if you can reduce authorizations, reduce them; recording your reasons for transferring… actually makes it easier to stick with. As for where the boundary is—well, in the end it’s just a tug-of-war between “the rules you think” and “the rules other people enforce.” For now, let’s leave it at that.