Jia Lilly

I want to talk about something that does not get credit. When Compact gave its compiler to the Linux Foundation in October 2025 that was a deal. I mean a big deal. Not just something you announce in a press release. Actually a big deal. Giving your tool to a neutral group like the Linux Foundation that everyone knows and trusts shows that Compact is thinking about the future. It tells developers that Compact is not just something that will disappear if the people who started it run out of money. That decision alone makes Midnight different from other Zero Knowledge projects that have come and gone over the past five years.

The way Compact works is also really cool. The way it uses witnesses is very clever. A smart contract can get information from outside the blockchain make a Zero Knowledge proof from it and the public ledger can check that proof without ever seeing the actual information. The contract does not know who you are. The network does not know how money you have. The part that checks for compliance only sees what it is supposed to see. For someone building a healthcare app or a tool for supply chains that is exactly what was missing from attempts to use private data on a public blockchain.

Now we get to the part. Compact makes it easier for developers who know TypeScript to build smart contracts. That is the group of people to target. There are tens of millions of TypeScript developers around the world. If even a small fraction of them can build smart contracts without needing to know about complicated math the potential for growth is huge.

The problem is that making things easier for developers does not make the complicated parts go away. It just moves them else. When a developer writes a contract and the compiler turns it into a Zero Knowledge circuit that developer is assuming that the compiler does everything correctly. In software development if there is an error the build process stops and you get a message that tells you what is wrong.. With Zero Knowledge circuits if there is a small mistake it might not always cause an error. It can make a contract that seems to work but actually does not.

This is not a theoretical problem. Look at all the times smart contracts on Ethereum have been hacked. It is like a list of contracts that worked fine at first but then did something. Solidity made it easier for people to build contracts but it also led to a lot of hacks that lost people hundreds of millions of dollars. Compact is important because it makes Zero Knowledge development easier.. It is a different story when it comes to making developers feel safe when they do not really understand how it works.

When a big company puts its supply chain logic into a Compact contract it is trusting that the compiler turns its business rules into the cryptographic rules. The people in the finance department who check the accounts are not experts in Zero Knowledge circuits. The developer who wrote the contract is not either. There is a gap between the to-use tools and the reliability that companies need.

The fact that Compact is source helps with this problem. It means that other people can check the compiler for mistakes.. Because it is open source bugs can be found and fixed over time. Those are protections.. They take time to work. The question is whether Midnight can build the tools and the culture of verification fast to make companies trust Compact before something goes wrong.

Just because something is easy to use does not mean it is safe. Safe means you have a system in place to check everything. Compacts documentation and the community around it have not yet built that system. What happens when a Compact contract fails in a real-world deployment and the Zero Knowledge circuit does not work the way the developer intended? What is Midnights answer to the gap, between the code and the actual cryptographic execution?

$NIGHT #NIGHT #night @MidnightNetwork

The Strait of Hormuz is back in the headlines, and this time markets are paying attention. Oil has surged past $100 per barrel as tensions around one of the world's most critical shipping corridors intensify. Roughly 20 million barrels pass through that narrow stretch daily disrupt that flow, and energy prices don't just rise, they spiral.
Here's why that matters for Bitcoin specifically.
Higher oil means higher inflation expectations. Higher inflation expectations means central banks hesitate to cut rates. Rate cuts get delayed, liquidity tightens, and suddenly the same macro pressure squeezing traditional markets starts showing up in crypto price action too. BTC isn't immune to that chain reaction it never really was.
Right now, Bitcoin is holding near $71,500. Resilient on the surface. But dig into the derivatives data and the picture gets more complicated. Open Interest has dropped from over $40 billion down to roughly $21.8 billion. Funding rates have cooled, dipping into negative territory recently. That's not strength that's a market that already flushed speculative leverage and is now cautiously repositioning.
The real risk isn't a straight-line selloff. It's a liquidity squeeze that forces leveraged positions to unwind all at once. Macro shocks don't move Bitcoin directly they trigger cascades in derivatives markets that do the actual damage.
History backs this up. During the 2022 Ukraine conflict, BTC bled out as oil climbed toward $120. The 2020 pandemic shock knocked it nearly 40% lower alongside everything else. This time the dip was brief and recovery was quick — suggesting institutional hands are holding the line around $70K.
But "holding for now" and "structurally safe" are two very different things. If oil stays elevated and inflation expectations keep building, the macro environment only gets more hostile for risk assets. Bitcoin's $70K floor will be tested the question is whether the market structure can absorb it without a deeper flush.
#bitcoin #BTC #BTCReclaims70k $BTC