I keep coming back to a simple, uncomfortable question:
How is a regulated institution supposed to use a public blockchain without exposing its clients?
That’s not a philosophical issue. It’s operational. If a bank settles trades on-chain and every wallet, flow, and counterparty becomes visible, that’s not transparency — that’s leakage. Competitors can infer strategy. Clients lose confidentiality. Compliance teams panic.
So what happens in practice? Privacy gets added “when needed.” Extra layers. Manual controls. Selective disclosure tools bolted on later. It always feels awkward. Like retrofitting seatbelts after the car is already on the highway.
Regulators don’t actually want radical transparency. They want auditability. There’s a difference. Markets need selective visibility — lawful access, provable records, but not public exposure by default. Most systems blur that line.
This is where infrastructure matters. If something like @Fogo Official , built around the Solana Virtual Machine, is going to serve regulated finance, privacy can’t be a patch. It has to be embedded in how execution and settlement work from day one. Not secrecy — structure.
Otherwise institutions will keep simulating privacy off-chain while pretending to be on-chain.
Who would use this? Probably trading desks, asset issuers, maybe tokenized funds — people who care about speed but care more about not leaking information.
It works if compliance teams trust it. It fails if privacy still feels like an exception.
