Listen, friend, recently Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, spoke on a topic that seems really important to me. He says: if Ethereum wants to become a real alternative to cash in the future, then it needs not only to be fast and scalable, but also to become as stable and confidential as possible. Without this, they say, no "new financial era" will work.
Interestingly, he wrote it for a reason. In Northern Europe (including Norway and Sweden), where previously they actively abandoned cash in favor of digital payments, now, on the contrary, interest in cash is growing again. Why? Because centralized payment systems, although convenient, turned out to be too vulnerable. People began to realize that they needed a "spare tire" — and this "spare tire" could become cash again. Or perhaps a decentralized digital money. But only on one condition — if they are as reliable and confidential as paper bills.
Buterin emphasizes that Ethereum must learn to play this role. That is, to become so stable (so as not to depend on a single point of failure), and so private (so that no one tracks your every transaction) that it can be used as the digital equivalent of cash.
He even refers to Zuko Wilcox and his work with Zcash, a cryptocurrency that relies on the complete privacy of transfers. And he adds that technologies like zk-SNARKs (zero-disclosure transfers) are already ready in principle. But there is a caveat: it all depends on reliable hardware and control over possible repeat transactions — a technically difficult task.
And you know, this whole story isn't just about technology. This is almost a philosophy: how much are we, as a society, ready to trust digital money when its physical form disappears? Which is more important to us — convenience or autonomy?
So I have a question for you.:
Would you rely entirely on digital currency if you were sure of its confidentiality and independence from the state or corporations?
