At a basic level, most people already understand why privacy matters.

You wouldn’t show your bank account to anyone who asks. You wouldn’t hand over your entire financial history just to participate in everyday life.

This intuition is almost universal.

At the same time, we also accept that privacy isn’t absolute. Government employee salaries are public. Nonprofit tax returns are public.

Certain kinds of transparency are healthy, even necessary.

So privacy isn’t a binary. It’s contextual.

The real question isn’t whether privacy should exist — it’s when, for whom, and under what conditions.

Privacy should be an option. Not always required, but always available.

Things get more complicated once institutions are involved.

Institutions need transparency for accountability, compliance, and trust. They also need privacy — to protect users, internal operations, trade secrets, and sensitive coordination.

This is where advanced cryptography begins to matter for privacy in practical, non-theoretical ways.

That’s why Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions (L2s) like ZKSync and Arbitrum already have a seat at the table when it comes to institutional adoption. Their tech stacks are privacy-ready, designed around institutional-grade requirements.. NEAR may be headed in a similar direction — though it’s still an open question how explicitly institutional that path will be.

This raises a deeper product and philosophical questions.

There’s a common saying in tech: build it and they will come.

In practice, that’s rarely true. Good product management is about building features your users actually want and need — not hypothetical users you hope will arrive someday.

Crypto complicates this because it forces us to ask: who is the user?

Is it individuals seeking sovereignty and freedom? Is it institutions seeking efficiency and compliance?

Can a system serve both without compromising one for the other?

In The Trustless Manifesto, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, writes that Ethereum was not created to make finance more efficient or apps more convenient.

It was created to empower people — to allow coordination without permission, and without blindly trusting intermediaries.

zkSync’s own cypherpunk-inspired writing echoes this ethos. Their ZK Credo is explicit about decentralization, individual sovereignty, and the dangers of power concentration.

And yet, zkSync is also pushing hard into institutional adoption — most notably with their Prividium product, a ZK based blockchain that keeps data private.

This is revealing.

The question isn’t whether institutions will use crypto. They already are.

The real question is whether DeFi can remain true to the values it writes about once serious entrenched powers enter the system.

zkSync’s ZK Credo contains one of the most important warnings in the space:

If a network possesses all the right technical attributes but its governance falls into the hands of a privileged few, it is destined to fail.

This isn’t theoretical. It already happened once.

The early Internet promised decentralization, openness, and user empowerment. It delivered global connectivity — and then quietly centralized power, data, and influence into the hands of a few massive corporations.

The missing ingredient wasn’t technology.

It was governance.

Blockchains didn’t just introduce new cryptography. They introduced on-chain governance — imperfect, messy, slow, and political.

DAOs are not elegant. They’re not efficient. They’re often frustrating.

But they are new.

They represent an attempt — maybe the first serious one — to embed power-sharing directly into the infrastructure itself.

Without governance, privacy technology is fragile.

Institutions don’t need to destroy decentralization to win. They just need governance systems weak enough to capture.

This dynamic reminds me of David Chapman's essay Geeks, Mops, and Sociopaths.

Crypto is a subculture, and you can see all three archetypes clearly:

• Geeks who care deeply about the tech and its ideals.

• Mops who do the bare minimum and generate noise.

• Sociopaths who understand power and know how to play the game.

Institutions structurally incentivize winner-take-all games and power accumulation.

If governance is centralized, institutions will win by default.

So the question going into this year isn’t necessarily whether DeFi will “sell out.” Institutions are already here, and DeFi has embraced them.

It’s whether its governance systems are strong enough to absorb institutional participation without losing the values that made the space worth building in the first place.

Privacy without decentralized governance won’t survive.

Decentralization without checks and balances won’t last.

Institutions will use whatever systems allow them to operate and win.

The real test for DeFi isn’t technical maturity — it’s whether sovereignty and freedom remains a feature, or quietly becomes a casualty.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to reach out directly or message me on Twitter — my DMs are open.

Happy New Year!

At a basic level, most people already understand why privacy matters.

You wouldn’t show your bank account to anyone who asks. You wouldn’t hand over your entire financial history just to participate in everyday life.

This intuition is almost universal.

At the same time, we also accept that privacy isn’t absolute. Government employee salaries are public. Nonprofit tax returns are public.

Certain kinds of transparency are healthy, even necessary.

So privacy isn’t a binary. It’s contextual.

The real question isn’t whether privacy should exist — it’s when, for whom, and under what conditions.

Privacy should be an option. Not always required, but always available.

Things get more complicated once institutions are involved.

Institutions need transparency for accountability, compliance, and trust. They also need privacy — to protect users, internal operations, trade secrets, and sensitive coordination.

This is where advanced cryptography begins to matter for privacy in practical, non-theoretical ways.

That’s why Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions (L2s) like ZKSync and Arbitrum already have a seat at the table when it comes to institutional adoption. Their tech stacks are privacy-ready, designed around institutional-grade requirements.. NEAR may be headed in a similar direction — though it’s still an open question how explicitly institutional that path will be.

This raises a deeper product and philosophical questions.

There’s a common saying in tech: build it and they will come.

In practice, that’s rarely true. Good product management is about building features your users actually want and need — not hypothetical users you hope will arrive someday.

Crypto complicates this because it forces us to ask: who is the user?

Is it individuals seeking sovereignty and freedom? Is it institutions seeking efficiency and compliance?

Can a system serve both without compromising one for the other?

In The Trustless Manifesto, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, writes that Ethereum was not created to make finance more efficient or apps more convenient.

It was created to empower people — to allow coordination without permission, and without blindly trusting intermediaries.

zkSync’s own cypherpunk-inspired writing echoes this ethos. Their ZK Credo is explicit about decentralization, individual sovereignty, and the dangers of power concentration.

And yet, zkSync is also pushing hard into institutional adoption — most notably with their Prividium product, a ZK based blockchain that keeps data private.

This is revealing.

The question isn’t whether institutions will use crypto. They already are.

The real question is whether DeFi can remain true to the values it writes about once serious entrenched powers enter the system.

zkSync’s ZK Credo contains one of the most important warnings in the space:

If a network possesses all the right technical attributes but its governance falls into the hands of a privileged few, it is destined to fail.

This isn’t theoretical. It already happened once.

The early Internet promised decentralization, openness, and user empowerment. It delivered global connectivity — and then quietly centralized power, data, and influence into the hands of a few massive corporations.

The missing ingredient wasn’t technology.

It was governance.

Blockchains didn’t just introduce new cryptography. They introduced on-chain governance — imperfect, messy, slow, and political.

DAOs are not elegant. They’re not efficient. They’re often frustrating.

But they are new.

They represent an attempt — maybe the first serious one — to embed power-sharing directly into the infrastructure itself.

Without governance, privacy technology is fragile.

Institutions don’t need to destroy decentralization to win. They just need governance systems weak enough to capture.

This dynamic reminds me of David Chapman's essay Geeks, Mops, and Sociopaths.

Crypto is a subculture, and you can see all three archetypes clearly:

• Geeks who care deeply about the tech and its ideals.

• Mops who do the bare minimum and generate noise.

• Sociopaths who understand power and know how to play the game.

Institutions structurally incentivize winner-take-all games and power accumulation.

If governance is centralized, institutions will win by default.

So the question going into this year isn’t necessarily whether DeFi will “sell out.” Institutions are already here, and DeFi has embraced them.

It’s whether its governance systems are strong enough to absorb institutional participation without losing the values that made the space worth building in the first place.

Privacy without decentralized governance won’t survive.

Decentralization without checks and balances won’t last.

Institutions will use whatever systems allow them to operate and win.

The real test for DeFi isn’t technical maturity — it’s whether sovereignty and freedom remains a feature, or quietly becomes a casualty.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to reach out directly or message me on Twitter — my DMs are open.

Happy New Year!