What actually happens when a bank wants to put real assets on-chain?

Not in theory. In practice.

The compliance team asks a simple question: who can see the transaction history? If the answer is “everyone,” the conversation usually slows down. Not because transparency is bad. But because regulated finance runs on confidentiality as much as it runs on auditability.

Client balances aren’t public. Trade strategies aren’t public. Settlement flows between counterparties aren’t public. Yet most blockchain systems treat privacy as an add-on — something you toggle later, wrap around, or manage with workarounds. It always feels slightly improvised.

That tension is why privacy by exception doesn’t really work. You end up building layers of access controls, side agreements, and legal patches around infrastructure that wasn’t designed for regulated actors in the first place. It increases cost. It increases operational risk. And regulators don’t love ambiguity.

If infrastructure like @Vanarchain is going to support real financial activity — tokenized assets, branded consumer products, on-chain settlement — privacy can’t be cosmetic. It has to coexist with compliance. Selective disclosure. Clear audit trails. Predictable enforcement.

The institutions that might use something like this aren’t chasing ideology. They want operational certainty.

It could work if privacy and regulation feel native to the system.

It will fail if privacy always feels bolted on after the fact.

#Vanar $VANRY