Below are guest posts and opinions from Matthew Nei Marg, co-founder of Aleph Zero.
At this time, I will not accept that I am a fan of European political orientation (or destination). Recently, Apple is partial Removing end-to-end encryption That's obvious from UK customers after British government pressure under the UK government's online safety laws. Rather than weaken encryption or implement backdoors globally, Apple is removing end-to-end encryption from its UK iCloud accounts. To say that this attempt to block privacy by the UK government is misguided is that I am doing my best.
The false logic of “nothing to hide”
Practical assumptions by governments and regulatory bodies seem to be tired and modest. “If there's nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear.” This is not only stupid, but dangerously wrong. It fundamentally misunderstands privacy as a concept. Privacy is not about hiding fraud. It is to maintain control of personal information in a world that is increasingly hungry for data. In particular, financial privacy exists as the basis for individual autonomy. However, when it comes to digital assets, this fundamental right is often portrayed as questionable.
Edward Snowden's response to this flawed logic remains the most succinct rebuttal. “To assert that you don't care about your right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different to saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.” Rights are not conditional on immediate usefulness to us personally. They exist as a protective measure against the inevitable excess of power. We protect them even when we don't think we need them.
The reality of encryption is to undermine the crime narrative. According to Chainalysis's 2024 Crypto Crime Report, only 0.34% of all crypto transactions Related to illegal activities. Let's sink it. Over 99.6% of crypto transactions are legal. This is the privacy feature of the blockchain ( Tornado Cash Saga (It's just an example). If a similar scrutiny was applied to cash, it would have long ago banned bills.
Privacy is a legitimate concern
Crypto's privacy serves many legitimate purposes. Consider pay negotiations. Would you like your potential employer to look at your full financial history? Or medical bills, should your medication purchases look to someone scanning the blockchain? Donations to political or other causes have long been protected in democratic societies. Without privacy, these basic activities become vulnerable to surveillance and control.
Some use cases are literally impossible without robust privacy protection. In many cases, business contracts require confidentiality. A company cannot operate if its competitors can track all transactions and estimate strategic decisions. If authorities can monitor and block support for vulnerable groups, financial inclusion efforts in areas with repressive regimes will collapse. Journalists protecting sources, dissidents seeking funds, and organisations operating in hostile environments all rely on personal transactions to function.
If you bring more of these activities through chains, you need privacy.
That's not to say that either me, or my Aleph Zero colleagues, are complete anarchists. There are laws relating to KYC and broker reporting requirements in the United States and elsewhere. However, there is an important distinction between accountable transparency with the right authorities and naked exposure to the whole world. For compliance to be meaningful rather than enforced, privacy infrastructure must exist. Cedar This is a great example. Others cannot track transactions, but users can reveal their identity with the exchange or KYC service if necessary.
We already have private finance, why doesn't Crypto do that?
One of the absolute foundations of what we expect in crypto privacy is to protect tokens and transactions. This is not radical. That's something we already take for granted with a bank account. Neighbors are unable to check the account balance. Random strangers can't see who you paid last Tuesday. But somehow, when blockchain technology offers these same protections, it It allows crime Rather than restoring basic dignity.
The philosophical foundation of this position is sound. It was clarified in Universal human rights declarationPrivacy is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Financial transactions reveal our health concerns, political affiliation, and personal relationships, including intimate details about our lives. The right to maintain these issues underpins individual freedom. Historically, cash provided this privacy naturally. With privacy, Crypto simply expands this tradition into the digital realm.
Furthermore, decentralization challenges a entrenched power structure. Privacy-focused cryptography creates a more balanced system by distributing control and knowledge to many participants rather than focusing on banks and governments. This is consistent with political theory from enlightenment to modern libertarian thought. Centre-based forces inevitably lead to abuse, but distributed systems provide natural protection.
Blockchain privacy is not a bug, it's a feature. It's not a tool for criminals, it's a right for citizens. When navigating the complex landscape of digital finance, you need to resist the wrong choices of security and privacy. They are complementary values, not opposites. A truly secure financial system protects not only our assets, but our dignity, autonomy and freedom. Ultimately, it is privacy that allows for this dignity.
It is mentioned in this article
