Data sovereignty belongs to oneself, @Lagrange Official makes #lagrange the "gatekeeper"

Who should have the final say? In the past, in Web3, validating data meant handing over information, which equated to giving away "sovereignty" to others. But @Lagrange Official 's Lagrange disagrees — relying on zero-knowledge proof technology, #lagrange allows users to hold tight to data sovereignty: during verification, only the "result" is provided, not the "content"; how the data is used and who sees it is entirely up to oneself.

For example, when applying for decentralized loans, traditional platforms need to check all your asset details; using #lagrange is different: you generate a ZK proof for "asset qualification," and the platform only knows "sufficient for borrowing" without knowing how much savings you have or what coins you bought. Another example is checking medical records, where you don't need to disclose your entire medical history to the institution; proving "having a certain diagnosis" is enough, and only you know the specific condition. This is how data should be: I use it to get things done, but I don't have to hand it over.

LA is the "provisions" for the "gatekeeper." Node staking of LA helps users generate proofs and earn service fees; the platform uses the #lagrange solution, partially destroying the LA paid, allowing the token's value to rise with user demand. @Lagrange Official also considers small businesses: launching a lightweight access solution that doesn’t require spending a lot of money to build a team, just spending a little LA to utilize top privacy technology, with a low barrier to entry that small and micro enterprises can also afford.

Now everyone increasingly understands that "data is an asset," and no one wants their assets to be "exposed." #lagrange happens to make data "valuable and secure," while $LA , as the "hard currency" of the ecosystem, naturally increases in value. @Lagrange Official uses Lagrange to prove: data sovereignty should be in one’s own hands.