Author: Bankless
Translation: Baihua Blockchain
The “complete transparency” of public chains was once Ethereum's proud banner, but today it has become a fatal shackle blocking trillion-dollar traditional capital from entering the market—on-chain, a massive transfer can even lead to the entire institution's trading strategy being instantly targeted by the entire network.
How can Wall Street giants embrace Ethereum without exposing their commercial secrets while meeting strict compliance requirements?
EthSystems, which has formally split from the Ethereum Foundation, is offering the ultimate solution to the decentralized world. In this article, the two founders, who straddle top investment banks and the forefront of cryptography, will deeply reveal how they break the paradox of "privacy and transparency cannot coexist" through modern zero-knowledge proofs, and outline the future blueprint for the entire industry to bring trillion-dollar institutional assets on-chain in compliance.
Origin and Mission: Why Ethereum Needs Institutional-Level Privacy
David: Welcome to Bankless. Today with me are Mo Jalil and Oscar Thorne. They are co-founders of EthSystems. This is a new team that has officially split from the Ethereum Foundation, focusing on three things: Ethereum, institutions, and privacy. I think this is extremely urgent for the entire crypto industry and Ethereum is no exception, as this is the key puzzle that truly elevates the Ethereum ecosystem to the next level. Oscar, Mo, welcome to Bankless.
Oscar: David, thank you for the invitation.
Mo: Thank you, David.
David: Let’s get straight to the point: why does Ethereum urgently need privacy? Oscar, I’ll throw this question to you first.
Oscar: Ethereum is an outstanding underlying technology and operates extremely reliably as a trusted and neutral decentralized base layer. However, it does not inherently have privacy protection mechanisms built into its protocol layer. Therefore, we see a lot of people trying to fill this gap, whether by exploring at the base layer or developing various solutions at the application layer. One could say that privacy is the most critical piece missing in both Ethereum and the entire public chain landscape. And this is where we come in.
For us, the core focus of the team is on institutions. Large institutions typically care about two things: first, the continuity and security of their core business, and second, strict compliance requirements. Because of these two constraints, traditional institutions have tended to choose private networks or consortium chains that they can fully control for a long time.
But at the same time, public chain Ethereum has deep global liquidity, new business collaboration opportunities, and great potential to optimize their existing business models. Without modern cryptography as a bridge, institutions cannot meet compliance and protect business secrets while enjoying the liquidity of public chains. They must possess these privacy computing capabilities to fully embrace the huge dividends brought by the public chain Ethereum.
David: Can you talk about your employment backgrounds? For you, EthSystems may be a newly established entity just over a month old, but this is obviously a natural extension of your long-term deep engagement in the technology curve. We need to understand what experiences you have accumulated in Ethereum, cryptographic privacy, and traditional financial institutions, and how these experiences have converged into EthSystems. Mo, please start with you.
Mo: I initially started in traditional finance and spent about five years building quantitative algorithmic trading systems at top investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. That experience gave me a deep understanding of the true needs and pain points of large investment banks in terms of system architecture, matching and clearing, and risk control compliance. After that, I worked in the hedge fund industry for a few years. For me, that crossover experience was very interesting.
At that time, I was tracking cutting-edge technology. I remember being shocked when I first read the Bitcoin white paper, but in that era, applying public chains in core financial business was clearly too early. Several years later, I joined the Ethereum Foundation, responsible for a lot of business development work at the application layer. At the time, Tomas served as co-executive director. During that period, one thing became extremely clear: any large traditional organization that wants to truly use the public chain Ethereum cannot bypass privacy protection and modern cryptographic solutions as a rigid prerequisite. I had known Oscar for many years, and I directly called him: Oscar, there’s something extremely suited to your background that concerns the future of the entire ecosystem; we must sit down and discuss it in depth.
Oscar: I have been deep in the crypto field for about ten years. I began focusing on privacy technology very early when it was far from a hot topic in the community. I worked at Status in my early years and later created a research and development lab. During that time, we led the development of various peer-to-peer communication protocols, focusing on censorship resistance, data availability, and communication privacy as underlying facilities. Thus, I have accumulated a long time of engineering experience in protocol design, cryptographic privacy, and censorship-resistant network architecture.
In the past five to six years, I have delved deeply into the field of zero-knowledge proofs, developing various development tools and infrastructure, including in-depth collaboration with early members of the Ethereum Foundation's PSC (Privacy & Scaling Explorations). I have also written a small book on proof systems, researched polynomial commitment schemes, and led the development of tools to reduce client proof complexity. In the past few years, I served as a privacy strategy advisor at the Ethereum Foundation, mainly responsible for new access layer architecture. As Mo mentioned, we initiated the institutional privacy working group while working at the foundation.
For me personally, my focus in the past has primarily been on personal sovereignty and user-level privacy, which remains a principle in my heart. But in recent years, I have clearly observed that the demand for privacy among institutions not only exists but is more urgent in many business scenarios than for individual users. This is directly related to the gradual clarification of global regulatory frameworks in recent years. Many leading institutions are very concerned about the commercial backlash caused by the exposure of on-chain data. For the past year, we have been publicly building this solution internally at the foundation and officially split it into an independent entity about a month ago.
Mo: To clarify, when we split to form EthSystems, we were not starting from scratch but brought in a whole year of solid R&D and delivery results: including multiple closed-door workshops, hands-on collaboration cases with many financial entities, public products released (for example, mapping various real financial use cases to a market panorama of Ethereum privacy solutions), and in-depth technical architecture analyses on private distribution, public chain ledgers compared to private execution tracks, etc. The EthSystems brand, though very young, embodies many years, even a decade, of cryptographic and financial engineering accumulation.
Strategies and Current Status: From Theoretical Research to Engineering Implementation
David: Oscar just mentioned two very key points: first, the foundation's privacy strategy; second, the essential differences between institutional privacy and personal privacy. Let’s start with the privacy strategy. What exactly is a privacy strategy? How do you define it in practice?
Oscar: This relates to the R&D environment where the PSC team was at the Ethereum Foundation at that time. We were trying to bring cutting-edge cryptographic work deeper into the foundation’s macro vision and systematically think about what privacy R&D directions the foundation should prioritize. Of course, many teams in the ecosystem are already advancing. I don’t want to speak too much on behalf of the foundation.
As the head of the institutional privacy working group at the time, our core mission was to connect two worlds that had been long disconnected: one side being traditional large institutions and the other being the Ethereum native ecosystem. When we communicated with financial institutions early on, they often had huge information gaps regarding Ethereum, generally believing that “this is just a completely transparent public chain with no business privacy at all.” But in reality, the Ethereum ecosystem has already stored a very rich set of solutions in its underlying cryptographic primitives, professional security vendors, and various layered privacy protocols.
Our work involved systematically breaking down the entire Ethereum privacy technology stack to institutions; on the other hand, we clearly translated for the cryptographic teams and protocol engineers in the ecosystem: what these real trillion-dollar commercial users are actually looking for. Therefore, we charted a segmented privacy market map, systematically sorting the specific needs of traditional institutions in particular business processes, legal compliance constraints, and trading scenarios, then accurately mapping it to existing technological solutions like zero-knowledge proofs, secure multiparty computation, or homomorphic encryption, guiding the industry through concept validation and architectural white papers to identify missing components and how to assemble these cryptographic building blocks together.
Mo: I’d like to quickly add this. When we broke out to set up EthSystems, we were not starting from scratch, but rather leveraging a full year of solid R&D and delivery results: including multiple closed-door workshops, hands-on collaborations with many financial entities, released public products (such as various real financial use cases mapped to an Ethereum privacy solution market panorama), and in-depth technical architecture analyses on private distribution compared to public chain ledgers. The EthSystems brand, though very young, behind it coalesces many years, even a decade, of cryptography and financial engineering accumulation.
Real-World Battlefields: Pain Points of Investment Banks and the Path to Customization
David: Since the core challenge lies in engineering, could you decompose a typical real-life case that you’ve encountered? When large institutions connect to Ethereum, what are the most common privacy demands? Is it confidentiality of enterprise stablecoin account balances, preventing holdings from piercing through during the issuance of real-world assets (RWA), or private settlements in B2B scenarios? What types of demands do you most often handle in practice?
Mo: The institutional use cases we encounter on a daily basis cover a very wide range. Frankly, our team generally focuses its energy on those tough nut problems that the existing market solutions haven’t addressed. Use cases like basic private transfers and tokenized deposits already have some preliminary solutions on the market and have seen phased resolutions within certain compliance-friendly countries and organizations. We are more focused on systemic pain points that are of huge scale in the traditional financial world but have not been seriously addressed in the public chain field.
For example, we once had an in-depth discussion with one of the world’s top investment banks regarding the “inter-dealer compression” business. In traditional derivatives and forex markets, a vast amount of bilateral exposure is generated daily between major banks. At the end of each trading day, to reduce capital occupation and default risk, all participating banks send their massive trading data to a centralized clearing service provider trusted by all parties. For this, these top financial institutions need to pay tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually in service fees.
This centralized third-party will review the sensitive transaction details and real-time positions of each bank, completing the netting and position compression of multiple positions in the background. While no major bank is willing to fully expose its underlying trading secrets to a third party, the need for position compression, which can significantly reduce capital adequacy ratio occupation and decrease the number of transactions requiring actual clearing, forces the entire industry to compromise.
The executives of this investment bank approached us with a request: Is it possible to completely remove this centralized mediator using cryptographic technology? The decentralized network built on Ethereum, with its immutable and shared global state, is ideally positioned to solve this problem. However, the core barrier lies in the fact that if these sensitive data are directly submitted to the public and transparent Ethereum mainnet, competitors worldwide would have a complete view of each bank's real positions. This is a typical real-world scenario, possessing potential value in the hundreds of billions, yet has received little attention from native crypto teams.
In the fields of private payments and settlement, we have also conducted several rounds of architectural validations with large institutions in various sovereign jurisdictions. As Oscar mentioned, while the concept of private payments sounds standardized, the specific regulations of different countries regarding financial regulation, anti-money laundering penetration, and foreign exchange controls would impose multi-dimensional complex constraints on the originally simple cryptographic models.
Oscar: Building enterprise-level confidential systems is far more complex than just adopting a zero-knowledge proof. Beyond data privacy, institutions are extremely concerned about the system's high availability, deterministic security boundaries, censorship resistance, and compatibility with existing settlement systems. Many times, our work lies in enhancing the rigor of the entire Web3 industry in terms of engineering specifications and system delivery.
These traditional giants have already validated the mature product-market fit (PMF) in their existing business, with their internal systems handling the flow of billions of dollars daily. When they consider migrating their business to the Ethereum ecosystem, their primary demand is for 100% system certainty. This is fundamentally different from the early industry’s intuitive, rapid iteration experimental development logic. Privacy is one of the most technically challenging components, yet it is merely a core attribute of the overall highly available distributed system. We must provide rigorously formally verified technical specifications that thoroughly cover various boundary conditions.
David: Has there been a case that has gone through the whole process from demand communication, technical validation to practical implementation? Can you share a complete journey of an institution successfully connecting to Ethereum using your privacy solution?
Mo: Under strict confidentiality agreements, I can share a true case of national-level financial infrastructure. In many mature economies, the logic of peer-to-peer payments is straightforward, but in certain specific jurisdictions, the regulatory logic is completely different. A large financial institution in that country wished to promote a blockchain-based underlying payment network nationwide. They fully recognized the efficiency of public chains in inter-institutional settlements, but the system must support high-concurrency transactions for a population of millions while meeting the unique compliance auditing framework of that country.
In standard cryptographic privacy payment models, typically only bilateral confidentiality and verification between the sender and receiver are required. However, the financial regulatory framework of that country explicitly states that every transaction must support the collaborative interaction of four entities on a cryptographic level: the funds sender, the funds receiver, the licensed compliance auditing institution, and the national regulatory body.
This institution had tried nearly all mainstream privacy protocols and scalability networks in the market over the past two to three years, but none could support controlled disclosure for all four parties while balancing throughput, deterministic latency, and manageable on-chain computation costs. They even wrote a detailed technical assessment report dozens of pages long to argue why this goal could not be achieved under the existing public chain systems.
The turning point was when our team publicly released a series of research articles and proof-of-concept code regarding multi-party private state transitions during our time at the Ethereum Foundation. The institution's technical head reached out to us after seeing these open-source results, stating that this breakthrough from the foundation made them reconsider the technical feasibility of building a nationwide clearing network based on Ethereum. They are currently advancing deployment based on our open-source architectural blueprint. This case not only breaks the stereotype that public chains cannot meet complex sovereign compliance but also avoids a regression to a completely closed and fragmented traditional private chain system.
Oscar: The business and technical validation cycles for such institutional-level collaborations are very lengthy, often undergoing rigorous compliance reviews, legal evaluations, and security audits. During my time at the foundation, many collaborating institutions frequently expressed willingness to seek us for deeper structural support through commercial procurement, but the foundation, as a neutral non-profit organization, could not accept commercial contracts, causing many projects that could have landed to stagnate at the last mile. This was ultimately the core reason we chose to split the team into an independent for-profit entity: to engage traditional institutions using seasoned commercial contract structures while continuing to support the public chain ecosystem through open source.
Scalability Paradox: Balancing Deep Customization and Universal Standards
David: Hearing this raises a core concern: if you must do a lot of highly customized development for every jurisdiction and every unique compliance requirement, how can the entire business achieve network effects and scalability? The industry often states that a perfectly fitting glove for one hand only suits that one hand.
Another evolutionary path is: if we directly embed native privacy into Ethereum's core infrastructure—such as making Uniswap, Aave, the basic EOA account system, and Ledger hardware wallets default to have high-fidelity, out-of-the-box privacy protection capabilities—can institutions directly adapt to these unified standards? If everyone operates under the same common standards, the overall privacy liquidity of the Ethereum ecosystem can see explosive growth. How do you balance this scalability contradiction between deep customization and universal standards?
Mo: This is a very profound industry proposition. First, the realization of custom implementations and the advancement of underlying universal standards are not mutually exclusive; the strength of the Ethereum ecosystem lies precisely in its flexibility for multi-layer collaborative evolution. Second, what people generally consider “specific customized markets” often represents a vast independent industry with scale potential reaching hundreds of billions in the traditional financial world.
We do not advocate for endless pure outsourcing customization; that is not a healthy business model. EthSystems’ core strategy is to first root ourselves in the frontlines, thoroughly understand the most challenging vertical scenarios. Only by fully grasping business details can we design truly usable cryptographic architecture; afterward, we will immediately abstract highly universal underlying cryptographic building blocks and protocol standards from these high-barrier scenarios.
For instance, the previously mentioned “inter-dealer compression” protocol, once successfully implemented in a leading investment bank, has its underlying cryptographic state machine that can be directly reused across all major investment banks globally; the “multi-party controlled compliance disclosure protocol” developed for sovereign payments can also be abstracted into a standard module serving compliant stablecoins in various regions worldwide.
Our long-term path is very clear: all core algorithms and universal interfaces that have been validated in practice will be contributed to the Ethereum community under the loosest open-source licenses, thereby thoroughly dispelling institutions’ concerns about proprietary technology lock-in; at the same time, we will encapsulate these audited components into high-performance, pluggable modular kits. This approach is similar to the “cognitive maze” methodology of Silicon Valley entrepreneurship: in the early stages, the team must personally engage in seemingly non-scalable but high cognitive barrier tasks.
Faced with traditional financial giants that have been operating stably for over a century, the public chain ecosystem cannot arrogantly demand them to entirely restart to fit Web3; rather, it must build a smooth transitional technological bridge starting from their existing business interfaces and legal frameworks.
Oscar: I fully agree with Mo's viewpoint. The crypto industry has commonly adhered to the idealistic logic of "as long as we build a solid underlying universal infrastructure, applications and users will naturally come." But facts have proven that when facing regulatory strictness and complex institution-level users, this logic often fails.
First tackling extremely complex specific scenarios before distilling them into universal standards is a path with significant engineering value. We are achieving this by releasing open-source codebases, modular protocol blueprints, and highly scalable technical specifications. Of course, we are extremely eager to see Ethereum’s base layer (L1) eventually natively support more privacy primitives, which would greatly expand the application boundaries of the entire decentralized world. However, at this stage, our primary strategic focus remains: to clear all obstacles and safely and smoothly bring trillion-dollar real institutional assets into the Ethereum ecosystem.
David: In terms of business model positioning, does EthSystems lean more towards being a consulting studio providing customized technical delivery for traditional financial institutions, or is it closer to product-oriented technology companies like Uniswap Labs or Aave Companies that obtain scalable value by building standardized products on-chain?
Mo: Our self-positioning is very clear; we are always a purely product-oriented company. I served as CTO in my previous job and have spent my career building scalable software products; Oscar also has a long background in product architecture and protocol development. We understand that only standardized products can bring exponential network effects.
However, the path to excellent products exists along an inevitable evolutionary spectrum. At the intersection of Ethereum and traditional finance, you cannot sit in an ivory tower and speculate on demands. The team must deploy as frontline engineers, observing the details of interactions between traders and clearing systems with their own eyes. The ultimate goal of all customization explorations is to crystallize out standardized infrastructure products that can be distributed at scale.
Oscar: The procurement and decision-making cycles of traditional institutions are inherently very long. Through early deep technical collaborations, proof of concepts, and joint architectural reviews, we can, with unprecedented depth, understand the rigid demands of the real world, ensuring that we possess significant competitive barriers when deciding to invest in core products. This deep feedback loop is something that external teams cannot achieve.
Endgame Scenario and Future Ecosystem: Reshaping the Boundaries of Transparency and Trust
David: Looking at the overall macro cycle, how has the willingness of traditional institutions to decentralize bookkeeping on public chains changed? In your daily business communications, are you mostly proactively promoting Ethereum, or are institutions actively seeking compliant solutions for on-chain access?
Mo: In fact, the vast majority of demand comes from institutions actively reaching out to us. Firstly, mainstream global financial institutions have sufficiently understood the immense value of decentralized shared ledgers in eliminating reconciliation costs and achieving real-time atomic settlement over the past few years. Secondly, one must objectively acknowledge the credit to the entire native DeFi ecosystem: when traditional institutions see the amazing resilience and capital efficiency demonstrated by decentralized lending and trading protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and MakerDAO amidst extreme market fluctuations over the years, they develop a strong willingness to participate, with their core demand being how to enter compliantly under current laws and regulations.
Especially after the relevant digital asset regulatory frameworks gradually clarify in Europe and America, the internal driving force among traditional institutions has fundamentally shifted. While in recent years, most institutions were engaged in low-risk PoC validations led by marginal “innovation labs,” in the past year, we have frequently seen CEOs or business line heads of large institutions directly issuing clear directives to their technical teams: stop merely developing experimental lab toys, and start building real business loops on public chains.
David: Does this mean that future evolution will first experience a transitional phase: on-chain, a batch of compliant institutional sandbox networks protected by cryptography will be created, allowing financial institutions to run their business logic in controlled environments; as liquidity and infrastructure mature, through cross-chain and zero-knowledge proof bridging technologies, they can compliantly access depth zones of native DeFi protocols like Morpho and Uniswap?
Oscar: This is precisely the pathway we clearly anticipate and are pushing forward. Many forward-thinking large asset management institutions are deeply planning how to achieve combinatorial integration of tokenized funds and on-chain borrowing protocols.
However, there exists a multi-year “cognitive and legal translation period” in between. Many multinational banks have histories stretching back over a hundred years; their internal risk control manuals and legal compliance frameworks are entirely based on traditional central counterparty clearing systems. To accurately map these compliance frameworks into the smart contract logic of Ethereum requires collaborative promotion among technical experts, legal advisers, and policymakers. Those who understand more deeply and act more decisively among mature capital are currently racing to seize this historic transition period.
David: Let’s cast our gaze into the future seven years from now. Assuming that by 2033, EthSystems has achieved all its initially set strategic goals and that the on-chain migration of traditional institutions has fully exploded, what does the most ambitious vision you have for the future on-chain financial system look like?
Mo: I believe the top technology in its ultimate form should be completely “invisible.” Ordinary users should not even need to perceive the existence of blockchains, cryptographic algorithms, or decentralized ledgers and should be able to naturally enjoy the underlying security and free flow capabilities it offers.
Through decentralized identities (DID) and zero-knowledge proof systems, an ordinary investor can comply with investment in quality global assets and achieve real-time settlement, all while fully controlling their sovereign data without having to submit sensitive privacy to centralized intermediaries. What we look forward to seeing is not just tens of trillions of dollars worth of traditional assets being minted on Ethereum, but more importantly, to allow global assets to retain the benefits of permissionless DeFi combinations while eliminating the risks of data exposure for innocent individuals and commercial entities. In the next seven years, the migration of global mainstream financial infrastructure to decentralized public chains like Ethereum will become a determined reality.
David: This raises a classic and sharp philosophical divergence: the core pillar that the crypto community has long been proud of is “complete data openness, fully verifiable across the network, and auditable on-chain.” If in the future the flow of assets, total value locked (TVL), and institutional positions are all hidden behind zero-knowledge cryptography, how can the community ensure that the underlying system has not secretly inflated or generated bad debts? How do we balance privacy protection with public trust?
Mo: Many industry observers easily equate privacy with complete unknowability of data hiding. The precise definition of privacy in the context of modern cryptography is: under strictly controlled conditions, clearly defining who, at what point in time, through what mathematical proofs can access which specific dimensions of information.
In real life, when you make a routine transfer at a bank, only you, the recipient, and the account-holding bank know the details of the transaction, and this business-level data isolation is the foundational order that ensures normal operations in the commercial society. The public’s demand for complete transparency essentially wants certainty that systems are not malicious. However, if modern cryptography allows us to provide verifiable proof of solvency to the entire network without exposing individual transaction counterparties and business secrets, this clearly represents a more advanced, elegant trust paradigm—selectively verifiable disclosure.
David: That is exactly the ideal state I hope for. The on-chain auditability we wish to retain includes broad macro indicators like total transaction volume, aggregated fund pool size, and the total locked amount (TLA) across the network, as well as the trigger line for uncontrollable liquidations.
When institutions deposit large private assets into borrowing protocols like Morpho, the system will still be able to output real-time verified total asset levels through zero-knowledge proofs to the entire network; when large orders are traded on decentralized exchanges, the public should be able to confirm that the transaction has indeed occurred and settled without revealing the specific institution's detailed holdings and real-time strategies to front-running arbitrage bots (MEV).
In the traditional mainnet, when top whales conduct large token exchanges, the entire network almost immediately executes ruthless front-running and targeting within seconds, which is not a proper operational mechanism for a serious modern financial system. Institutions cannot withstand their entire trading footprints being endlessly monitored. As long as we can verify the authenticity and compliance of the ledger through proof, we can fully balance transparency and commercial privacy.
Oscar: Absolutely correct; there is no irreconcilable contradiction between the two at the cryptographic level. With modern zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic commitment schemes, we can design an elegant layered system: keeping macro indicators concerning public safety and system resilience globally transparent and checkable, while allowing specific account entities, transaction details, and business strategies to gain impenetrable privacy protection at the micro level. Ethereum’s Turing-complete programmability provides the best soil for such a structure that caters to the optimal features of both ends.
David: How should the developers and core protocols within the ecosystem collaborate to accelerate this process? Whether it's native DeFi blue chips like Morpho and Uniswap or researchers from the Ethereum Foundation, how can they better clear the obstacles for institutional-level privacy?
Mo: For wider DeFi ecosystem protocols, our call is very direct: if you are building innovative borrowing, trading, or asset management infrastructure, please feel free to contact EthSystems. We are eager to explore how we can architecturally adapt battle-tested DeFi protocols to institutional-level compliant privacy use cases.
At the same time, our team will systematically open-source the latest technical specifications and codebases every three to four weeks. Many executives and architects from international financial institutions closely track these technical outputs. If the native community builds highly innovative privacy or scalability tools, we welcome direct submissions to our open-source codebase for collaborative evolution.
Oscar: Participants in the Ethereum ecosystem need to adopt a more open mindset to view our potential user groups. We hope to push developers not only to focus on the experiences of native retail users but also to deeply consider what kind of technical interfaces large entities constrained by compliance require. Breaking the cognitive barriers between the Ethereum ecosystem and traditional institutions is a system engineering challenge that requires long-term collaboration across the entire ecosystem.
Mo: Ultimately, our core mission can be summarized in one sentence: to be translators and bridge builders navigating between top boardrooms and cyberpunk realities. These two groups have often misunderstood and even opposed each other in the past, but we firmly believe that only by embedding decentralized technology that truly defends individual rights and commercial freedoms into the underlying system specifications at the highest decision-making levels can we genuinely reshape the future of global financial infrastructure.
David: This reminds me of an insight shared by Ethereum core researcher Danny Ryan. As a steadfast believer in decentralization, when he sits down with architects from top Wall Street banks, although both sides use completely different professional vocabularies, their underlying demands are highly consistent: cyberpunks advocate for decentralization and censorship resistance, while traditional bank executives discuss how to eliminate single counterparty default risks. This is akin to the horseshoe theory—the ultimate demands at both ends are fundamentally isomorphic.
Oscar: That is indeed the case. Whether for individuals or institutions, the core attributes that everyone truly cares about at the foundational level remain highly consistent: security, censorship resistance, rule transparency, and privacy sovereignty.
The most fascinating aspect of Ethereum lies in its immense inclusiveness: it can support completely decentralized, identity-agnostic native crypto experiments while also building the next generation of financial systems that are both private and compliant for trillion-dollar entities under strict legal and business constraints. By deeply understanding this point, we will realize that these two aspects have always been interconnected.
David: Mo, Oscar, you are advancing work that is crucial for the entire Web3 industry. Thank you for the profound insights you've brought to Bankless, and I wish EthSystems all the best in its journey towards institutional on-boarding.
Oscar: Thank you very much for the invitation, David.
Mo: Thank you, David; it’s a pleasure to be here.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
