Have you ever wondered why big players always seem hesitant when trading on the chain? Ultimately, it all comes down to one word—exposure.

Every transaction is broadcast across the entire network, revealing what’s in the account and how much has been transferred, leaving nothing hidden. Anyone would find this complete exposure unbearable.

In the early days, privacy technology was a taboo topic; bringing it up was like discussing something shameful. But some have figured it out—privacy itself isn’t a crime; the key is to comply with regulatory scrutiny. Why choose one or the other?

Their approach is this: use zero-knowledge proofs to lock down transaction details so others can’t see them, but provide compliance proofs openly to regulators. It’s like installing a one-way glass on your account—your operations are opaque, but audit evidence is always accessible.

Over the past six years, many projects have risen and fallen, but this team has been steadily sharpening their skills. Early this year, they quietly launched their EVM mainnet, and industry insiders realized—this technology can enable DeFi applications on Ethereum to wear an invisibility cloak while still holding a compliance license.

To put it metaphorically, it’s like installing traffic lights in the jungle of the crypto world. Vehicles still run, data still flows, but you can never tell who’s driving or what’s in the trunk. Those who need to know can see through audits; those who shouldn’t remain in the dark.

Recently, their actions have become even more aggressive—partnering with a licensed Dutch trading platform to gradually migrate €300 million worth of traditional securities assets onto the chain. This isn’t just a small RWA experiment; it’s a real integration of traditional finance and blockchain—traditional assets come in, layered privacy protections are applied, and audit trails are permanently traceable.

Looking at the current discourse of "privacy versus compliance," it’s reminiscent of thinking from years ago. This is the correct stance: it’s not a choice between one or the other, but both are necessary—neither can be missing.