2026-01-16 07:25:45

When it comes to blockchain, we often hear the word "decentralization," but for most people, the real pain points are actually simpler—it's about "efficiency" and "fairness."

Recently, I read a design document for a certain privacy-focused blockchain project. What left the deepest impression wasn't the technical details, but the problems it aims to solve. In traditional financial markets, institutions and large players indeed hold advantages in information and speed. Retail investors are always the last to know news and the last to execute trades, and they have to pay a bunch of intermediary fees. This is not just talk; many people have experienced it.

From this perspective, "eliminating financial market privileges" does sound quite appealing. Replacing intermediaries with code, reducing transaction costs, and using zero-knowledge proof technology to protect privacy and prevent large institutions from exploiting retail investors' information gaps... the logic seems quite straightforward.

But here’s the problem. Jumping from "market unfairness" to "technology can automatically solve it" is a bit of a leap. For example, "automated compliance" seems simple on the surface, but in reality, it involves complex system engineering. It’s not just a technical issue; it also involves regulations, supervision, and countless variables in real-world applications.

This is also why truly innovative changes to financial markets often require time and practical validation. A good vision needs good execution—both are indispensable.

View Original

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.

7 Likes

Reward
7
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ZkProofPudding

· 7h ago

That's right, but reality is always a hundred times more complex than code.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityLarry

· 7h ago

That's right, the pitfalls between code and compliance are much deeper than expected. Wait, zero-knowledge proofs to prevent information gaps—can it really work? It still feels like regulation will hold things back. It's another story of lofty ideals versus harsh reality. Hmm... retail investors have indeed been exploited for so many years, but technology can't control human nature. Automated compliance sounds absurd—does law also have to be coded? We hear this kind of argument every day, but where are the projects that actually get implemented?

View OriginalReply0

RektRecovery

· 7h ago

tbh the "code replaces intermediaries" pitch is classic web3 copium... we've seen this movie before, ends same way every time

Reply0

RunWithRugs

· 7h ago

In simple terms, code can't change human nature. Regulations and those things won't automatically disappear. --- Once again, it's the "technology salvation" theory. I've heard this talk too many times. So, what's the situation now? --- The pain points for retail investors are indeed these, but can information gaps really be bridged by zero-knowledge proofs? Overthinking it, aren't we? --- Automating compliance sounds impressive, but in reality, it's all empty. The legal side simply doesn't buy into this. --- The problem isn't technology; it's that some people always want to profit from information asymmetry. Will these folks let go? --- It feels like this article mixes ideals with reality. Blockchain isn't magic. --- Wait, will big institutions really obediently let retail investors compete on equal footing with them? I find that hard to believe. --- The vision is good, but execution is full of pitfalls. Most projects end up becoming just another way to cut the leeks. --- I support lowering intermediary fees, but don't overestimate what technology can do. --- The core issue isn't addressed: who guarantees that this system won't be controlled by a new power group?

View OriginalReply0