Opinion by: Eran Barak, CEO at Midnight 

It’s been almost 16 years since blockchain emerged from its esoteric fringes to enter global discourse, evidenced most recently by continued backing from Wall Street incumbents. Despite this remarkable ascendancy, the unfortunate truth is that this technology has yet to realize its true business potential. A core challenge persists: Too much sensitive data remains publicly unshielded.

The crux of the issue is that companies must keep business data confidential, and people strive to safeguard their personal information as best they can. Once data is put on a public blockchain, however, it becomes irreversibly and indefinitely exposed.

Even if a business takes every possible precaution to conceal data, mistakes made by others or vulnerabilities in the system can expose sensitive onchain data or metadata, including participants’ identities. This can lead to privacy breaches, compliance violations or both, undermining the foundational assumption that blockchain is trusted and underscoring the importance of robust measures to protect sensitive data.

On the other side of that coin, concealing activity on a blockchain can open the door to money laundering, triggering negative government responses. Instances in which this has occurred have led to a false impression that governments oppose Web3 privacy, a criterion businesses fundamentally need for them to adopt the technology. 

From whichever angle we look at it, maintaining privacy onchain is a real and complex issue for Web3. Until we solve it, businesses will not and should not be expected to cross the chasm. 

The belief that governments oppose privacy on the blockchain is wrong

Web3 entrepreneurs have grown to fear that building decentralized applications and businesses that provide financial anonymity could land them in regulatory trouble. Just look at Samourai Wallet, whose co-founders were charged with money laundering, or Tornado Cash, whose developer was sentenced to 64 months in prison for similar reasons. 

These responses have led to a consensus that governments are opposed to privacy altogether when it comes to blockchain. 

Recent: AI agents and blockchain are redefining the digital economy

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Governments don’t oppose privacy but mandate it across industries. Data protection laws, like the General Data Protection Regulation or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, are in place to ensure businesses protect our customer data from misuse and security threats.

The real issue these high-profile cases reveal is that Web3 measures to protect data have created opportunities for misuse, enabling the facilitation of criminal activities that have understandably raised serious concerns on behalf of governments. Blockchain data protection capabilities should not undermine established cross-jurisdictional laws safeguarding the global community from terrorism, human trafficking, fraud and other criminal offenses. 

This begs the question: What does privacy, done right, look like?

Selective disclosure

When it comes to using blockchain, protecting sensitive data is typically accomplished by either keeping the data offchain, or encrypting data onchain. The latter is not durable privacy given quantum computing’s rapid advances in cracking encryption. 

The advent of zero-knowledge (ZK) technology, a complex cryptographic technique, allows users to ensure sensitive data remains offchain by sharing attestations about the validity of the data instead. In Web3, ZK has emerged as a transformative way to enhance privacy as it enables untrusted parties to validate that a transaction has occurred without sharing any information about the transaction. 

Decentralized applications can exercise selective disclosure by choosing between putting data onchain (full disclosure), putting it onchain with encryption (disclosure via viewing keys) or using ZK to only publish attestation about the data (offering utility without any disclosure). Selective data disclosure only solves half of the puzzle. It was not designed to account for metadata.

The next privacy frontier

Metadata, the information surrounding our data, is an under-discussed component of blockchain’s exposure of sensitive information; it can be used to make inferences, creating an added layer of vulnerability even when the data itself is concealed. 

For example, through transaction metadata, investment and trading strategies can be inferred in addition to other behavioral patterns. For businesses, the implications of this can be detrimental to their growth and ability to stay ahead of competitors. They can’t afford to have trade secrets and strategies, or even the identities of other parties they are transacting with, made public.

The need to protect metadata and remove the ability to make inferences is paramount to security and can be addressed using a private token. Such capability can, however, be easily misused for money laundering.

If using a private token is not the solution, and using a public token does not provide sufficient levels of confidentiality, then the way to solve this challenge is to rethink Web3’s approach to protecting metadata altogether. We need to combine the benefits of both approaches, effectively creating a dual-asset system in which a public and a private token are used. Each asset functions independently, meaning specific restrictions can be placed to prevent illicit activities such as money laundering while retaining all the benefits.

A powerful framework

The dual-asset system enables confidentiality without the ailments shielding metadata usually brings, making compliance and business policy enforcement possible. By combining this tokenomics structure with selective disclosure, privacy and regulatory compliance can coexist on the blockchain, which will have resounding effects on adoption and innovation.

Opinion by: Eran Barak, CEO at Midnight.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Coinbase’s emergence as the Ethereum network’s largest node operator raises concerns about network centralization that could worsen as institutional adoption accelerates, industry executives told Cointelegraph. 

On March 19, Coinbase published a report disclosing that the US cryptocurrency exchange controlled more than 11% of staked Ether (ETH), more than any other Ethereum node operator. 

According to Karan Sirdesai, CEO of Web3 startup Mira Network, Coinbase’s growing dominance highlights “a systemic issue in Ethereum’s staking architecture.”

“We’re creating a system where a handful of major players control an outsized portion of network security, undermining the core promise of decentralization,” Sirdesai told Cointelegraph.

According to the report, Coinbase controlled 3.84 million ETH staked to 120,000 validators, representing 11.42% of staked Ether as of March 4. 

Liquid staking protocol Lido controls a larger share of staked Ether overall — approximately 9.4 million ETH, according to Lido’s website.

However, Lido’s staked Ether is distributed across dozens of independent node operators, Anthony Sassano, host of The Daily Gwei, said in a March 19 post on the X platform.

To limit risks, Coinbase spreads staking operations across five countries and employs multiple cloud providers, Ethereum clients, and relays, according to its report. “Diversification at the network level and the overall health of the network is always a priority for us. That’s why we periodically check network distribution,” the exchange said.

Related: Ether ETFs poised to surge in 2025, analysts say

Impending centralization risks

Ethereum’s network concentration could worsen if US exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are permitted to begin staking — a priority for asset managers such as BlackRock.

Coinbase is the largest custodian for US crypto ETFs and holds ETH on behalf of eight of the nine US spot Ether funds, the exchange said in January. 

“This type of network consolidation brings with it increased risk of censorship and reduced network resilience,” Temujin Louie, CEO of Wanchain, a blockchain interoperability protocol, told Cointelegraph. 

For instance, high staking concentrations “represent potential points of regulatory pressure… [and] these large staking entities will likely prioritize regulatory adherence over network censorship resistance when faced with difficult choices,” Sirdesai said.

Meanwhile, new US regulatory guidance allowing banks to act as validators for blockchain networks adds to centralization risks, several crypto executives said.

“If too much stake consolidates under regulated entities like Coinbase and US banks, Ethereum will become more like traditional financial systems,” Louie said. 

Conversely, more institutional validators could actually improve staking concentrations. Cryptocurrency exchange Robinhood is especially well positioned to check Coinbase’s staking dominance, according to Sirdesai.

Robinhood already has “the crypto infrastructure, user base, and technical capabilities to move into staking rapidly. They could realistically challenge Coinbase’s position faster than any traditional bank,” Sirdesai said.

Magazine: Ethereum L2s will be interoperable ‘within months’ — Complete guide

The Department of Government Efficiency team — or DOGE, which is not an official US government department — led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk is reportedly moving into the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to a March 28 Reuters report, Musk’s DOGE team contacted the SEC and was told it would be given access to the commission’s systems and data. The agency reportedly planned to establish a liaison team to work with the “efficiency” team, whose intentions were not immediately clear.

“Our intent will be to partner with the DOGE representatives and cooperate with their request following normal processes for ethics requirements, IT security or system training, and establishing their need to know before granting access to restricted systems and data,” said an email to SEC staff, according to Reuters.

After taking office as US President in January, Donald Trump signed an executive order allowing DOGE to implement cost-cutting measures, claiming efforts “to save taxpayers money.” However, many of Musk’s efforts — including attempting to fire staff at the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, and shutting down the watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — face lawsuits in federal court from parties alleging DOGE’s actions were illegal or unconstitutional.

Related: Can the law keep up with Musk and DOGE?

Many federal officials and lawmakers have expressed concern with Musk’s team’s seemingly “move fast and break things” approach to government. In his purge of the US government, he has allegedly illegally fired thousands of federal workers, most of whom were ordered to be reinstated after a judge’s order on March 13. It’s unclear whether the DOGE team has the same plans for the SEC.

Cointelegraph spoke to SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who declined to comment on the report or confirm if she had received a similar email. Cointelegraph contacted Acting Chair Mark Uyeda and Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Is new leadership coming to the SEC?

The US Senate Banking Committee will likely soon take a vote on whether to advance the nomination of Paul Atkins, Trump’s pick to chair the SEC. At a March 27 confirmation hearing, Atkins said he would “definitely” be willing to work with DOGE if confirmed as an SEC commissioner. Lawmakers also questioned his potential conflicts of interest with the crypto industry.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered