Tiger Research：Monero、Zcash和Canton Network谁才是隐私之王？

This article is written by Tiger Research, and one of the decisive narratives for 2026 is “Privacy.” As institutional participants take a dominant role in the cryptocurrency space, privacy has become a key technological feature connecting blockchain with real-world business.

Key Points

• The core advantage of blockchain—transparency—may expose corporate trade secrets and investment strategies, posing substantial risks to businesses.
• Fully anonymous privacy models like Monero do not support KYC or AML, making them unsuitable for regulated institutions.
• Financial institutions need selective privacy that can protect transaction data while remaining compliant with regulations.
• Financial institutions must determine how to connect with open Web3 markets to enable expansion.

1. Why is blockchain privacy necessary?

One of the core features of blockchain is transparency. Anyone can check on-chain transactions in real-time, including who sent funds, who received them, the amounts involved, and when they were sent.

However, from an institutional perspective, this transparency presents obvious issues. Imagine a scenario where the market can observe how much Nvidia transferred to Samsung Electronics, or when hedge funds deploy capital precisely. This visibility will fundamentally change competitive dynamics.

The level of information disclosure that individuals can tolerate differs from what enterprises and financial institutions can accept. Transaction histories and timing of institutional investments are highly sensitive information.

Therefore, expecting institutions to operate on fully exposed activity blockchains is unrealistic. For these participants, systems without privacy are less practical infrastructure and more of an abstract ideal with limited real-world application.

2. Forms of blockchain privacy

Blockchain privacy generally falls into two categories:

• Full anonymity privacy
• Selective privacy

The key difference is whether information can be disclosed when the other party needs to verify.

2.1. Full anonymity privacy

Full anonymity privacy, simply put, means hiding everything.

Sender, receiver, and transaction amounts are all concealed. This model directly opposes traditional blockchains, which default to prioritizing transparency.

The main goal of fully anonymous systems is to prevent third-party surveillance. They are not designed for selective disclosure but aim to completely prevent external observers from extracting meaningful information.

Source: Tiger Research

The above image shows a transaction record from Monero, a representative example of full anonymity privacy. Unlike transparent blockchains, details such as transfer amounts and counterparties are not visible.

Two features illustrate why this model is considered fully anonymous:

• Output total: The ledger does not display specific numbers but shows values as “confidential.” Transactions are recorded, but their content cannot be interpreted.
• Ring signature size: Although initiated by a single sender, the ledger mixes it with multiple decoys, making it appear as if multiple parties are sending funds simultaneously.

These mechanisms ensure that transaction data remains opaque to all external observers without exception.

2.2. Selective privacy

Selective privacy operates based on different assumptions. Transactions are by default public, but users can choose to make specific transactions private by using designated privacy-enabled addresses.

Zcash provides a clear example. When initiating a transaction, users can choose between two address types:

• Transparent addresses: All transaction details are publicly visible, similar to Bitcoin.
• Shielded addresses: Transaction details are encrypted and hidden.

Source: Tiger Research

The above image illustrates what elements Zcash can encrypt when using shielded addresses. Transactions sent to shielded addresses are recorded on the blockchain, but their content is stored in encrypted form.

While the existence of the transaction remains visible, the following information is hidden:

• Address type: Using shielded (Z) addresses instead of transparent (T) addresses.
• Transaction record: Ledger confirms a transaction occurred.
• Amount, sender, receiver: All encrypted and not observable externally.
• Viewing rights: Only parties with the viewing key can inspect transaction details.

This is the core of selective privacy. Transactions remain on-chain, but users control who can view their content. When necessary, users can share viewing keys to prove transaction details to another party, while all other third parties remain unable to access this information.

3. Why do financial institutions prefer selective privacy?

Most financial institutions have Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) obligations for every transaction. They must retain transaction data internally and respond immediately to regulators or supervisory authorities’ requests.

However, in environments built on fully anonymous privacy, all transaction data is irreversibly hidden. Because information cannot be accessed or disclosed under any circumstances, institutions are structurally unable to fulfill their compliance obligations.

A representative example is Canton Network, which has been adopted by Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and is currently used by over 400 companies and institutions. In contrast, although Zcash is also a selective privacy project, its adoption among real-world institutions is limited.

What causes this difference?

Source: Tiger Research

Zcash offers selective privacy, but users cannot choose which information to disclose. Instead, they must choose whether to disclose the entire transaction.

For example, in a transaction “A sends $100 to B,” Zcash does not allow hiding only the amount. The transaction must be either fully hidden or fully disclosed.

In institutional transactions, different participants require different information. Not all participants need access to all data within a single transaction. However, Zcash’s structure forces a binary choice between full disclosure and full privacy, making it unsuitable for institutional workflows.

In contrast, Canton allows transaction information to be managed in separate components. For instance, if regulators only require the transaction amount between A and B, Canton enables institutions to provide only that specific information. This feature is implemented through Canton Network’s smart contract language Daml.

Other reasons why institutions adopt Canton are detailed in previous Canton research.

4. Privacy blockchains in the institutional era

Privacy blockchains evolve with changing demands.

Early projects like Monero aimed to protect individual anonymity. However, as financial institutions and enterprises began entering the blockchain environment, the meaning of privacy shifted.

Privacy is no longer defined as everyone being unable to see transactions. Instead, the core goal has become protecting transactions while still meeting regulatory requirements.

This shift explains why selective privacy models like Canton Network have gained attention. Institutions need more than just privacy technology—they require infrastructure designed to match real-world financial transaction workflows.

In response to these needs, more enterprise-focused privacy projects continue to emerge. Looking ahead, the key differentiator will be how effectively privacy technologies can be applied in actual trading environments.

Alternative forms of privacy that oppose current institutional trends may also emerge. However, in the short term, privacy blockchains are likely to continue developing around institutional transactions.

Source: Tiger Research