To truly bring real-world finance onto the chain, privacy issues cannot be avoided. Recently, I came across a concept that uses homomorphic encryption combined with zero-knowledge proofs. By default, transaction amounts, account balances, and ownership statuses are encrypted and stored, but when auditors or regulators need them, quick verifiable proofs can be generated. In simple terms, it’s about giving privacy a "switch"—only turning it on in front of the right people.
This solution is built on an EVM-compatible environment, allowing developers to continue using Solidity and existing tools without relearning a new set. This is very important for institutions—they need to protect their trading strategies from exposure while also meeting compliance requirements.
What practical applications can this enable? For example, encrypted order books so market participants cannot see who wants to buy or sell (preventing front-running); confidentiality of ownership information during transfers; verification processes that can be completed on the client side in seconds, providing a good user experience. This isn’t about achieving complete anonymity but rather privacy that is auditable and controllable—privacy acceptable to institutions.
It’s especially meaningful for tokenized securities and RWA scenarios. Banks and funds want to hide their investment strategies while proving compliance—these two needs were hard to satisfy simultaneously before. Now, turning privacy into a controllable and auditable feature makes large-scale on-chain finance pilot projects feasible. If you’re considering large-scale on-chain financial applications, this privacy engineering approach is worth paying attention to.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
16 Likes
Reward
16
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BoredApeResistance
· 7h ago
The privacy switch idea is indeed brilliant; institutional finance finally has a way out.
Wait, can this really prevent the on-chain transparency curse...
Homomorphic encryption combined with ZK... to be honest, it's a bit complex, but if it truly allows compliance and privacy to coexist, then RWA on-chain is no longer a dream.
Erm, EVM compatibility indeed reduces development costs, but how about performance?
Order book encryption to prevent front-running—that's what I want.
Feels like it's still serving the big players...
A few seconds for verification is good; at least the UX didn't crash.
How many of these schemes are actually implemented? Or is it just another PPT plan.
View OriginalReply0
quietly_staking
· 01-09 18:52
The idea of the privacy switch is pretty good; at least someone finally understands what institutions want.
View OriginalReply0
pvt_key_collector
· 01-09 18:52
The idea of a privacy toggle is indeed brilliant; the key to institutional finance going on-chain has been unlocked this way.
View OriginalReply0
YieldFarmRefugee
· 01-09 18:51
Hey, the idea of a privacy switch is quite clever, but when it comes to real implementation, won't organizations still distrust each other?
View OriginalReply0
SellLowExpert
· 01-09 18:50
Alright, this privacy switch idea really solves the mental block for institutions.
Isn't this just trying to have your cake and eat it too? Privacy for privacy, audits for audits, sounds ideal, but will it actually be feasible in practice...
I respect the anti-front-running measures; encrypting the order book really can reduce a lot of risks.
Homomorphic encryption + ZK (Zero-Knowledge proofs) combined on EVM—what are the costs? I'm worried it might end up being a game for the rich.
Let's see if banks are really willing to put real money on the line; right now, it's all just talk on paper.
If this wave can successfully address both compliance and privacy, institutional funds will definitely flock in, but who will bear the risks?
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationWizard
· 01-09 18:32
Homomorphic encryption combined with zero-knowledge proofs is indeed a good approach, but the real challenge is how to calculate gas fees for implementation.
Privacy toggle sounds appealing, but after regulatory approval, who is responsible for data security?
The biggest bottleneck for RWA on-chain is trust. No matter how much encryption is used, someone still needs to vouch for it.
Institutions want to enjoy both privacy and compliance, but I think that's quite challenging.
Preventing front-running is interesting; encrypting the order book can indeed solve the obvious issues.
View OriginalReply0
FOMOSapien
· 01-09 18:31
The concept of a privacy switch is good, but will institutions really trust this system?
---
Homomorphic encryption + ZK sounds great, but who will bear the performance costs?
---
Encrypting order books to prevent front-running—I like this idea... but how practical is it to implement?
---
Making privacy controllable, frankly, is still about pleasing regulators, which feels a bit like compromise.
---
RWA on-chain indeed requires this kind of solution, but the key is whether the efficiency can keep up.
---
EVM compatibility is quite clever; developers won't need to relearn, so adoption might be higher.
---
The last mile of institutional finance going on-chain finally seems to have some hope?
---
Auditable privacy sounds good, but who defines "the right people"...
To truly bring real-world finance onto the chain, privacy issues cannot be avoided. Recently, I came across a concept that uses homomorphic encryption combined with zero-knowledge proofs. By default, transaction amounts, account balances, and ownership statuses are encrypted and stored, but when auditors or regulators need them, quick verifiable proofs can be generated. In simple terms, it’s about giving privacy a "switch"—only turning it on in front of the right people.
This solution is built on an EVM-compatible environment, allowing developers to continue using Solidity and existing tools without relearning a new set. This is very important for institutions—they need to protect their trading strategies from exposure while also meeting compliance requirements.
What practical applications can this enable? For example, encrypted order books so market participants cannot see who wants to buy or sell (preventing front-running); confidentiality of ownership information during transfers; verification processes that can be completed on the client side in seconds, providing a good user experience. This isn’t about achieving complete anonymity but rather privacy that is auditable and controllable—privacy acceptable to institutions.
It’s especially meaningful for tokenized securities and RWA scenarios. Banks and funds want to hide their investment strategies while proving compliance—these two needs were hard to satisfy simultaneously before. Now, turning privacy into a controllable and auditable feature makes large-scale on-chain finance pilot projects feasible. If you’re considering large-scale on-chain financial applications, this privacy engineering approach is worth paying attention to.