2026-01-04 05:25:45

zkKYC has become a direction for many Web3 projects to explore. Approaches like Tria are interesting—they neither follow the completely permissionless and radical route nor revert to the traditional financial methods.

The key lies in how to find a balance between privacy protection and compliance obligations. There’s no need to rush to a conclusion; instead, you can establish your own judgment framework:

On one end is a privacy-first, fully permissionless design—maximizing user privacy with almost zero compliance obligations. On the other end is the traditional banking model with full real-name verification. Tria explores a middle ground, using zero-knowledge proof technology to achieve verification without revealing identities—users can prove they meet compliance requirements without fully disclosing personal information.

The value of this hybrid model is that it can both protect privacy and meet the compliance expectations of mainstream financial ecosystems. Whether it’s suitable or not depends on how you weigh these two aspects.

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MindsetExpander

· 19h ago

From the perspective of zero-knowledge proofs, it's truly brilliant—balancing privacy and compliance. The intermediary state that Tria found is really a wise move.

View OriginalReply0

RooftopVIP

· 01-05 23:54

zkKYC this intermediary approach is indeed interesting, but it still feels like a gamble on whether regulators will accept it. Ultimately, it's a game of probabilities.

View OriginalReply0

ShortingEnthusiast

· 01-05 01:46

The middle ground sounds good, but the question is who will define "compliance"...

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSourGrape

· 01-04 05:55

Uh... it's again the middle ground, again balancing. It would have been better to deploy Tria earlier. What's the point of saying all this now?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 01-04 05:55

Late at night, I'm researching zkKYC again. This thing is much more complicated than a cross-chain bridge. Zero-knowledge proofs sound cost-effective, but has anyone calculated the verification costs? How much will the gas fees be...

View OriginalReply0

DataChief

· 01-04 05:52

zkKYC, to put it simply, is whether you can have your cake and eat it too. Tria's approach is okay, but whether it can survive once fully rolled out depends on the regulatory environment.

View OriginalReply0

FUDwatcher

· 01-04 05:52

This intermediate route sounds good, but when it comes to implementation... Zero-knowledge proofs sound advanced, but in practice, will it turn out to be the same old trick of "promised privacy, but in the end, the data is still sold"?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 01-04 05:49

Haha, zero-knowledge proofs are indeed interesting. It feels like a product of negotiations between Web3 and traditional finance, where both sides step back a bit and gain something.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiDoctor

· 01-04 05:47

The medical records show that the zkKYC solution performs reasonably well in clinical practice — but the key is to see how the zero-knowledge proof code vulnerabilities are handled. Once there is a flaw in the verification logic, privacy protection and compliance obligations become meaningless. Regular reviews are recommended.

View OriginalReply0

InscriptionGriller

· 01-04 05:38

The zero-knowledge proof trick, to put it simply, is like trying to open a restaurant that serves both fish and bear paws. It sounds appealing, but how far it can go really depends on how regulators glare at it.

View OriginalReply0