Both are privacy coins, so why have they taken completely different K-line trajectories?

Recently, the privacy coin sector has shown a clear divergence: on one side, some established privacy coins are steadily oscillating or even strengthening, while on the other side, small and medium privacy projects continue to decline, with trading volume rapidly shrinking. This divergence is not accidental but a result of the market re-pricing the "privacy value."

First, regulatory expectations have become a dividing line. Privacy coins are not encountering regulatory pressure for the first time, but this time the difference lies in the repeated mention of "selective compliance." Some privacy coins offer optional privacy features, audit interfaces, or traceable transaction schemes at the technical level, allowing them to still have room for survival within compliance narratives; whereas fully anonymous, uncompromising projects are more easily marginalized by exchanges in the short term, directly reflected in price and liquidity.

Second, the real on-chain usage demand is beginning to be scrutinized by the market. Early privacy coins were more driven by ideology, but in the current market, whether there is genuine transfer demand, whether they are used for cross-border payments or specific economic scenarios, is starting to directly influence capital attitudes. Privacy coins that can "be used" perform significantly better than projects that are only "storytelling."

The divergence of privacy coins essentially marks the market's shift from an emotional stage to a filtering stage. Future opportunities are not about "whether it is privacy," but about "whether privacy has value and can be accepted." This also means that the market for privacy coins will no longer rise and fall together but will enter a brutal cycle of survival of the fittest.