In crypto, privacy simply isn’t simple enough

By: bitcoin ethereum news|2025/05/04 04:30:02
0
Share
copy
The following is a guest post and opinion by Adam Gągol, Co-founder of Aleph Zero. It’s often said that if you want something done, make it easy to do. This truism runs across disciplines from marketing to sales. Perhaps it has never been more true than in crypto, with ten centralized exchanges accounting for 90% of all crypto trading , where user experience is simple and easy. Privacy in crypto is another layer of complexity on top of an already complex technological paradigm. If users are to come on board, we need to make it private. And in order to make it private, we need to make it simple. The Complexity Barrier Current privacy solutions in the crypto space require users to navigate a labyrinth of technical jargon, multiple interfaces, and convoluted processes. Many crypto wallets — the vast majority of which aren’t private by default — feature relatively intricate designs making it difficult for users of “web2” products to adjust. What should be a basic function – keeping your financial transactions private – often requires advanced technical knowledge. This complexity exists within an ecosystem that already challenges users with poor user experience design. Basic crypto functions like sending tokens, managing private keys, and connecting to decentralized applications remain far from intuitive. When privacy becomes yet another layer of complexity that hasn’t been properly abstracted away, most users simply give up. The result? They default to centralized exchanges, surrendering the very autonomy and self-sovereignty that drew many to crypto in the first place. Privacy Should be User-Centered The Fogg Behavior Model (FBM) explains this phenomenon well. Developed by Dr. BJ Fogg of Stanford University, the model states that for a behavior to occur, three elements must converge: motivation, ability, and a prompt. When any of these elements is missing, the behavior won’t happen. In the context of crypto privacy, users may have high motivation (protecting their financial information), but if the ability component is too difficult (requiring technical knowledge, multiple steps, or confusing interfaces) they simply won’t follow through, regardless of how many prompts they receive. Research consistently shows that people avoid or refrain from activities, even when they know these activities are in their best interest, if the process is too complex. This explains why many crypto users understand the importance of privacy but continue using centralized exchanges, or chains, that track and share their transaction data. Another significant hurdle is the fragmented nature of blockchain privacy. Users often need different privacy solutions for different blockchains, forcing them to learn multiple tools and techniques. We’re working to address this issue with our platform Common, which offers multi-chain privacy solutions with intuitive interfaces, but such approaches remain the exception rather than the rule. Privacy should ideally be chain-agnostic, providing a simple, one-stop solution for shielding transactions across different blockchains. This fragmentation further increases the cognitive load on users and reinforces the perception that crypto privacy is “for experts only” – a dangerous notion that undermines one of the industry’s core value propositions; its openness and democratic instincts. The Privacy Paradox in Finance What makes this situation particularly puzzling is that financial privacy isn’t a new concept . Traditional banking has maintained transaction privacy as a default feature since the days of the Medici family. When you transfer money through a bank, other bank customers don’t see your transaction. This basic level of privacy has been standard for centuries . Even though today’s internet users, particularly Gen Z, may share personal details freely on social media (and generally care less about privacy ), they still expect privacy in their financial dealings. This disconnect between the privacy standards of traditional finance and crypto creates a barrier to adoption that the industry must address. (Interestingly, many Bitcoin users assume it has strong privacy protections.) The crypto space faces a crucial challenge: it must simplify privacy or lose its retail appeal as people wake up to its poor privacy protections. Until users can protect their transaction data with the same ease they expect from traditional finance, mass adoption will remain elusive. Source: https://cryptoslate.com/in-crypto-privacy-simply-isnt-simple-enough/

You may also like

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

On the day of commencement, should we go long or short?

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

1. Top News: Tariff Uncertainty Returns as Bitcoin Options Market Bets on Downside Risk 2. Token Unlock: $SOSO, $NIL, $MON

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

The Essence of Agentification: Use algorithms to replicate your judgment framework, replacing labor costs with API costs.

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

The network appears to be still running, but participants are dropping off.

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

What's Been Trending with Expats in the Last 24 Hours?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us

Original Title: Against Citrini7Original Author: John Loeber, ResearcherOriginal Translation: Ismay, BlockBeats


Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.


The following is the original content:


Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.


Never Underestimate "Institutional Inertia"


In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.


When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."


Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.


A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.


I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.


The Software Industry Has "Infinite Demand" for Labor


Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.


But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.


I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.


From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.


Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.


I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.


This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.


Redemption of "Reindustrialization"


Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.


But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.


As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.


We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.


We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.


Towards Abundance


The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.


My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.


At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.


If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.


Source: Original Post Link


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more