# Why I 'Don't Like' Privacy *And What Crypto Should Really Be About* By [RM](https://paragraph.com/@rm) · 2025-05-05 --- * * * _This is my digital playground where I dump ideas, debate with AIs, and document the interesting collisions. If you're new here, welcome to the chaos._ _I'm obsessed with crypto as massive-scale coordination experiments, not just money. I work with_ [_WE3_](https://we3.co)_, and my true passion is understanding play - how we lost it and how to get it back (_[_welostplay.wtf_](http://welostplay.wtf)_)._ * * * **Well, now that I have your attention, let's talk about "privacy."** If you've been anywhere near crypto circles lately, especially around Ethereum, you've likely noticed a rising narrative: Crypto _is for_ privacy. Or, in meme terms, it _always has been_. This isn't entirely wrong, but I think the way we talk about privacy has some serious flaws. And how we talk about things, the language and metaphors we choose, shapes reality. It’s something I think about a lot in my work helping projects shape their grand narratives. Don't get me wrong. I'm a massive advocate for the _ideals_ often bundled under the privacy umbrella. Years ago, I was lucky enough to work with [IDEO and Mozilla exploring data and privacy.](https://wiki.mozilla.org/State_Of_The_Internet/Surveillance_Economy) My belief in individual empowerment, ownership, and decentralization to reduce trust in single points of failure is _why_ I'm in this space. These concepts are deeply intertwined. But the _word_ "privacy"? That's where my hesitation comes in. * * * ### The Trouble with "Privacy" Over the years, I've found that **metaphors and language are probably the most powerful design tools in the world.** The metaphors we choose ripple outwards, shaping understanding and action. And "privacy," as a metaphor and a term, is a beast. It's vague, loaded, and lends itself to rapid, often unhelpful, conclusions. On paper, we might agree privacy means keeping things to yourself, protection, avoiding exploitation. But in practice: 1. **It's Too Easily Hijacked:** The word gets pulled in countless directions. Onchain, where transparency has been a core tenet, suddenly focusing _only_ on "privacy" can feel like a confusing pivot. 2. **It Invites the Wrong Debate:** How often have we heard, "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't need privacy"? It's a terrible argument, yet incredibly effective at shutting down nuanced conversation. "Privacy" gets instantly framed as hiding, as secrecy. 3. **It's Wildly Subjective:** What you consider private, I might not. Privacy is contextual – it changes based on environment, community, even the moment. This makes broad pronouncements about "privacy" often lead to meaningless debates where everyone talks past each other. 4. **It Creates Black-and-White Thinking:** Look at tools like Tornado Cash. For some, it's purely a money-laundering tool. For others, it's vital infrastructure for individuals in oppressive regimes or simply for financial self-defense. The "privacy" frame forces us into these extreme corners. Privacy isn't the antithesis of transparency. It's not _just_ about hiding. But the word itself drags that baggage along. * * * ### The Real Goal: It's Not About Privacy, It's About Control Here’s the core insight that emerged from that Mozilla exploration, and it fundamentally shifted my perspective: **Privacy is not about privacy but about control and power.** Let that sink in. **Privacy is an outcome, not the thing itself.** Think about it. When I work with teams defining their vision, we talk about altitudes of narrative. Abstract concepts like Ethereum's "infinite garden" or "world computer" resonate with some but leave others cold. "Privacy" operates at a similarly high, abstract altitude. It describes a _desired state_ but not the mechanism or the core value driving it. What _is_ the driving value? What connects the dots between crypto's core promises – self-sovereignty, permissionless systems, true data ownership? **It's control.** * Control over your information. * Control over your communications. * Control over your assets. * Control over your digital identity and interactions. * Control over _what_ is shared, _when_, _how_, and _with whom_. This is the power that centralized platforms often deny us, making decisions _for_ us, often without our knowledge. Shifting the frame from the passive state of "privacy" to the active agency of "control" aligns perfectly with crypto's original, radical appeal: **individual empowerment.** * * * ### Shifting the Narrative: From Defense to Empowerment So, if privacy is the _outcome_ (the Y), what's the _input_ (the X) and the _process_ (the How)? The "How" involves technology: cryptography, zero-knowledge proofs, and innovations I'm not expert enough to detail fully. Incredible work is happening there. But the "Why" and the _narrative_ we build around it? That's crucial. If we frame our goal simply as "The Future is Private," **we invite the crime scene debate heads-on.** We put ourselves in a defensive corner, forced to constantly justify ourselves against the (sometimes factual) argument that these tools _can_ be misused. It’s often a losing battle in the court of public opinion. What if, instead, we frame our mission around **empowerment through control?** We are building and implementing advanced cryptography _not just_ for "privacy," but to give individuals **resilient control** over their digital lives. We are building decentralized systems to make individuals **less reliant on intermediaries** and more **sovereign.** In this framing, privacy isn't the potentially suspect primary goal; it's a **desirable, intentional side effect** of building systems that put users back in the driver's seat. It's about resilience, not just hiding. * * * ### The Elephant in the Room: Control Isn't Convenient (Yet) Here’s the uncomfortable truth: **Privacy, and the control it requires, is often inherently user-unfriendly.** The reality of managing your own keys, permissions, and data visibility today is inconvenient. Think about those cookie banners across the EU. How many of us actually spend time configuring our choices? Most click "accept all" for the convenience of accessing the site. **We are guilty of signing away our power and rights for an immediate dopamine hit or simple ease of use.** This is the critical challenge we face _alongside_ the technological one. Abstraction layers in crypto (like account abstraction) are improving UX, making things smoother. But **abstraction is a double-edged sword.** It can simplify, but it can also obscure, potentially abstracting away _actual control_ in the name of convenience. If user empowerment through control is the mission, then we need to invest with **as much rigor and effort into the User Experience of control** as we do into the underlying cryptography. How do we make exercising control not just _possible_, but _intuitive_ and _convenient_? How do we design interfaces and experiences where users _feel_ empowered, not burdened? * * * ### The Path Forward: Build for Control, Talk About Empowerment Let me be clear: we absolutely should continue pushing the technological frontiers that enable privacy. That work is essential. But we need a parallel push on two other fronts: 1. **Shift the Narrative:** Let's talk less about the abstract, easily misunderstood concept of "privacy" and more about the tangible, empowering goal of **user control**. Frame it as resilience, sovereignty, and agency. 2. **Obsess Over UX for Control:** We need to make user empowerment _convenient_. This requires dedicated focus on design, usability testing, and finding interaction models that don't force users to trade control for simplicity. We need experiences where managing permissions and data feels as natural as sending a message. 3. **Develop Better Metaphors:** We need visuals and ideas that expand the concept beyond just "keeping secrets" to encompass the full scope of digital self-determination. The goal is a decentralized digital space where individuals are genuinely empowered. Where privacy isn't a debated feature, but a _default property_ emerging from systems designed, from the ground up, for user control. Let's empower us out there. * * * _I generally use AI to co-write my notes. I do this because I feel that AI is a wonderful tool more to explore your thoughts and ideas further rather than just fixing your grammar. It's easy to generate AI slop. But I think we underestimate the aspect of how our tools are tools for expansion rather than just getting something out fast based on your first impression. _ _If you are a team that explores better UX or narratives around privacy through the lens outlined above, reach out through_ [_ramon@we3.co_](mailto:ramon@we3.co)_._ --- *Originally published on [RM](https://paragraph.com/@rm/why-i-dont-like-privacy)*