If we only understand @MidnightNetwork and $NIGHT as "privacy track projects", I think it actually narrows the perspective a bit. When many people mention privacy chains, their first reaction is to try to hide transactions, addresses, and amounts as much as possible, but what Midnight aims to solve is more like another issue: not everything in reality is suitable for being made public on-chain, but we also cannot discard verifiability, auditability, and compliance just because we want to protect data. It’s more like doing one thing: what should be proven can be proven, but the content that shouldn't be shown to others doesn't necessarily have to be fully disclosed.
I think the most interesting point here is the layered design of $NIGHT and DUST. $NIGHT is the public native token, more inclined towards the network and governance layer; what truly drives on-chain operations and privacy computing is DUST. In this way, what Midnight wants to express is very clear: it aims to protect the privacy of data and business logic, not to turn the flow of value into a completely boundary-less black box. I believe this idea is much more advanced than simply shouting 'privacy track', and it feels more like preparing for real application scenarios.
Thinking further, many enterprises, institutions, and even ordinary users are not unwilling to go on-chain, but rather cannot accept the 'default full exposure' model. Identity, medical records, contracts, and enterprise processes—saying everything should be public is unrealistic; saying everything should be locked down will encounter trust issues. The answer given by Midnight is more like 'selective disclosure', where what needs to be verified can be verified, and what needs to be hidden can be hidden. Personally, I feel this is where it truly differs from many similar projects.@MidnightNetwork $NIGHT #night
