2026-01-19 07:25:12

From "Anonymous Protection" to "Verifiable Collaboration"—the story of privacy technology over the past decade is actually a paradigm shift. Zero-Knowledge Proofs, Secure Multi-Party Computation, Trusted Execution Environments—these three technological approaches each shine in isolated scenarios. ZK proofs verify the correctness of computations without revealing the process, MPC enables multiple parties to reach consensus in untrusted environments, and TEE establishes a trust foundation through hardware-level isolation. It sounds quite versatile—but in reality, it always falls just a bit short.

The real challenge lies here: when multiple institutions need to collaborate in real-time on the same business process, how can they protect their underlying data from leakage while ensuring the entire process's determinism and consistency? Existing privacy solutions either focus on data concealment or on collaboration mechanisms, but haven't yet found that perfect balance point. That’s why we need to continue thinking—what should the next decade of privacy technology look like?

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FUDwatcher

· 8h ago

Pain points are deeply felt, but an integrated solution is the right path. It's still too early.

View OriginalReply0

StableGeniusDegen

· 13h ago

To be honest, I've been pondering this issue recently. ZK, MPC, and TEE each stand on their own, and are fine individually, but when it comes to real-world cross-organization collaboration scenarios, it's a different story. The key is that performance and cost are always inversely related—more rigorous data protection means lower collaboration efficiency. Finding the true balance may require waiting for new underlying architecture ideas to emerge.

View OriginalReply0

TestnetFreeloader

· 13h ago

Thinking back to trying out several MPC solutions last year, they indeed got stuck on latency and cost issues. ZK, on the other hand, is progressing faster, but the pain point you mentioned hits the mark—there's really no elegant solution for data consistency during multi-party real-time collaboration. It still feels like a hybrid architecture is necessary, combining these three approaches rather than relying on a single technology to dominate. The industry is probably still in the exploratory stage.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationTherapist

· 13h ago

Well said, but the real-world issue is that no one is willing to pay the performance cost for privacy. ZK proofs are impressive, but the overhead is there; MPC's latency is unacceptable to anyone; TEE also depends on chip manufacturers. In the end, it still comes down to game theory and incentive mechanisms, rather than pure cryptography.

View OriginalReply0

FUD_Vaccinated

· 13h ago

It's clear now that we are in a stage where various technical approaches are mutually constrained. ZK proofs are powerful for privacy but come with staggering computational costs; MPC trust mechanisms are more flexible but have lower performance ceilings. TEE sounds the most practical, but ultimately relies on hardware vendors, which is itself a black hole of trust. The key contradiction you pointed out—that in real-time collaboration scenarios, privacy and consistency are indeed hard to achieve simultaneously. Current solutions on the market either have good privacy but suffer from significant efficiency drops, or sacrifice some privacy guarantees for speed. No one has truly solved this trade-off. In the next decade, the focus should be on hybrid architectures. Perhaps the answer isn't in a single technology but in how to smarter combine these three approaches. But this requires breaking the current siloed state of each approach.

View OriginalReply0

HalfPositionRunner

· 13h ago

Here's an idea—ZK, MPC, TEE each have their own ceilings, but the real bottleneck is actually the cross-protocol state synchronization problem. In multi-party real-time collaboration, rather than saying the privacy technology isn't strong enough, it's more about lacking a unified "consensus language." Current solutions mostly focus on a single dimension, and the result is that combining them actually increases complexity. Privacy costs rise, but efficiency decreases—how to break this contradiction? I believe the next step should be to think in reverse—starting from the business process rather than the technical framework. What truly needs to be hidden, what can be made public, which steps must be synchronized, and which can be asynchronous? If this question is answered well, the technical choices will become much clearer.

View OriginalReply0