What is the mainstream approach of privacy projects? Simply put, it's "complete concealment"—cutting off links between addresses, encrypting transaction amounts, and obfuscating fund traces. But some projects think differently: the true value of privacy actually lies in precise control over "who, when, and what they can see."

Take securities transfers as an example. The same transaction presents different views to different roles. Ordinary users see a string of encrypted data, revealing nothing; the trading parties can see essential clearing information—such as the number of shares traded and timestamps; regulatory agencies, after verifying identities and permissions, can see all transaction details—who participated, where the funds came from, and whether it complies with regulations.

This isn't achieved by maintaining multiple ledgers, but through zero-knowledge proofs and selective disclosure mechanisms, encoding multiple layers of truth within a single record. It sounds highly technical, but the underlying idea is actually quite simple.

The real contradiction in the financial world is never a binary choice between "transparency or privacy." The true dilemma is "transparency to whom." Investors want to hide their trading strategies to prevent opponents from copying; companies need to disclose accounts to shareholders; regulators must prevent money laundering and systemic risks. These three needs seem conflicting, but with a finely tuned permission control system, all can be satisfied.

From another perspective, this kind of privacy isn't a shield but a lens. It doesn't block light but adjusts focus and perspective. It's not about creating a black box but about producing an auditable gray box—outsiders can't see internal operations clearly, but authorized individuals can verify everything precisely. This is called "just the right amount of visibility," protecting market confidentiality while maintaining the traceability required by institutions.

Even more interestingly, this view of privacy transforms the logic of trust. Traditional finance relies on centralized intermediaries acting as trusted third parties; pure anonymous blockchains depend on cryptographic assumptions; whereas this approach relies on verifiable selective transparency—you don't need to trust a specific institution, only trust mathematical proofs and permission rules.

In this sense, it's not a retreat from privacy but a higher level of openness.