#稳定币应用发展 Seeing Zama's privacy stablecoin go live, my first reaction wasn't excitement but rather questioning an old familiar question: is this time really different?

Honestly, I've heard too many stories in the privacy track. From Monero to Zcash, and then to various Layer 2 privacy solutions, the market always promises "complete privacy," but very few actually survive and are widely adopted. This time, Zama's on-chain transfer of cUSDT based on Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE), with a single transaction fee of $0.13, does seem a bit different—but the key question is, can low costs translate into real application demand?

I noticed a detail: compared to Zama's enthusiasm, the token distribution controversy of Lighter at the same time exposed another hidden risk. 50% allocated to the team and investors, with a 1-year cliff and 3-year linear unlock—I'm very familiar with this pattern. Every time I see this structure, the subsequent selling pressure feels like a timed bomb. Although some defend it as "early risk-taking," the problem is that a high VC share often means the project's long-term incentives and community interests can easily become misaligned.

For the development of stablecoin applications, Zama's breakthrough is indeed worth paying attention to, but don't get blinded by the "cryptography ideal" narrative. The real test lies in two aspects: first, whether the privacy demand truly exists—how many users are willing to pay a premium for privacy? second, regulatory stance—what is the position of privacy transfers in different jurisdictions worldwide?

The future of stablecoins should be "money as it looks," but only if they survive long enough. The secret to lasting in this track is to avoid being hostage to high promises, and to see clearly who is genuinely building and who is just packaging narratives.