2025-12-30 21:24:05

To bring blockchain into the mainstream, compliance is an unavoidable hurdle. But there's an awkward problem: traditional KYC and AML procedures inherently conflict with the privacy, openness, and permissionless spirit that blockchain advocates. What to do? Instead of passive compromise, it's better to think about smarter solutions.

APRO's answer is an adaptive compliance protocol—redesigning identity and transaction verification frameworks through programmability. The core idea is quite interesting: since not all interactions are equal, handle them in a layered manner.

Specifically: at the bottom layer, it is completely open. Fully anonymous, zero barriers. Low-risk, small-value operations like likes and social interactions in games, anyone can participate, maintaining the original nature of blockchain.

One layer above, introduce verifiable claims. Users can selectively obtain a zero-knowledge proof credential from licensed KYC institutions. This credential can prove that you have been verified and are not on sanctions lists, while your specific identity information remains completely hidden. Only when compliance is required does it come into play; otherwise, it’s as if it doesn’t exist.

The brilliance of this design is that it satisfies regulatory requirements without sacrificing privacy and openness. Instead of rigidly transplanting traditional finance rules onto the chain, it leverages blockchain’s inherent features to allow rules to dynamically adapt to different regional requirements. Users hold the initiative—privacy is not forcibly disclosed but shared only with their consent.

If this approach can truly be implemented, it could provide valuable insights for solving compliance dilemmas across the industry.

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidationAlert

· 12-30 21:53

Hey, zero-knowledge proofs are indeed brilliant. Compliance and privacy can finally coexist without having to choose one over the other. I think this layered design is good—low-risk scenarios are open, and only large transactions require verification. Finally, someone has come up with a clever solution instead of rigidly cracking down. However, the problem is, will KYC institutions become new centralized bottlenecks... Zero-knowledge proofs sound very appealing, but the real challenge is in implementation. If it can truly be used, regulators wouldn't be so uncomfortable. But reality is always much more complicated than theory. The idea of adaptive protocols is promising, but I still have some doubts about whether the true spirit of permissionless systems can be maintained. Finally seeing someone seriously thinking about this issue, not just blindly opposing regulation. The core logic of this plan is good; the key is how different countries' regulators will recognize it.

View OriginalReply0

ChainDetective

· 12-30 21:35

Zero-knowledge proofs sound quite clever, but will KYC institutions cooperate in real-world scenarios? Finally, someone is seriously considering this issue. Layered solutions are indeed more practical than blunt full-chain bans. As soon as policies change, this entire scheme becomes useless. Don't be naive. It feels like this is just giving regulators a decent way out. Clever is clever, but it depends on how long it can last. Can privacy and compliance truly be achieved simultaneously? The more I look at it, the more I think this is a false proposition... I can't understand the part about verifiable claims. How do credentials prevent replay attacks? Can someone explain? Honestly, it still relies on third-party institutions. Doesn't that indirectly centralize the system? Isn't that contradictory to the original intention? The layered approach is good; at least it acknowledges that different scenarios require different rules, which is more reliable than black-and-white solutions. If this can really be implemented, it might be a turning point, providing a way for projects caught between compliance and decentralization.

View OriginalReply0

BackrowObserver

· 12-30 21:30

Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed clever, but the key is whether regulators in various countries will buy into it. It's nice to say layered processing, but in reality, it's either being watched to death or rendered useless. Can compliance and privacy truly be achieved simultaneously? I'm a bit skeptical. To make this path work, it probably has to pass several hurdles. It sounds good, but in practice, will the implementation be another story? Right now, everyone is touting these kinds of solutions; it all depends on who can actually bring them to fruition. Adaptive sounds advanced, but in reality, isn't it just old tricks with a new coat? Who will bear the cost of zero-knowledge proofs? In the end, it's still the users who pay. This logical framework is beautiful, but I'm worried that a government ban could make it all pointless. I think APRO's approach is interesting, but how far it can go is uncertain. The key question is, are licensed KYC institutions willing to cooperate? Can the利益链 (interest chain) be streamlined? Wow, someone finally thought of this idea—finding a middle ground between compliance and freedom.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhilosopher

· 12-30 21:26

This APRO plan sounds promising; the layered compliance approach is definitely much better thought out than the previous one-size-fits-all method. But on the other hand, the real challenge is in execution... Zero-knowledge proof credentials sound great in theory, but the question is whether licensed institutions will actually cooperate, especially across different jurisdictions. Ultimately, it still depends on each country's attitude. This kind of optional KYC is actually a gamble—betting that users will proactively verify themselves. But most people are too lazy to even remember their wallet addresses, let alone actively obtain credentials. I remain skeptical... It's not truly permissionless after all; in the end, verification still relies on decentralized KYC institutions. Claiming to protect privacy, but in reality, it's a compromise with regulators. Just a different facade. Zero-knowledge proofs are indeed innovative, but is the ecosystem mature enough to support them? Can most contracts recognize such credentials? It feels like the ecosystem still has a long way to go. I just want to know, when regulatory crackdown becomes truly strict, can this system hold up? It seems the risk has just shifted onto the verification institutions... This approach is at least better than directly sacrificing privacy, but don’t tell me this is a perfect solution. Time will tell us the answer.

View OriginalReply0