jfab.eth@josefabregab
This is insane.
The Institutional Growth Lead at @CantonNetwork is either deliberately lying, or he doesn't understand how Ethereum, Solana and his own product work. Let's quickly dissect each of these claims:
1. “Canton, Solana, and Ethereum have the same permissionless properties”
This is simply false.
On Ethereum and Solana, anyone can deploy, validate (with capital), and read state. Hence, these are permissionless networks.
On Canton, participation is gated. Validator access and broader network interaction require sponsorship and approval flows, IPs, and an SV sponsor. Hence, Canton is not permissionless.
2. “Only one has the privacy required for capital markets”
False.
On Ethereum and Solana, privacy is supported via smart contracts, enabling third party verification without revealing raw data. Examples include:
- Validity proofs
- Encrypted mempools / TEEs
- App-layer privacy (@aztecnetwork-style architectures)
On Canton, what he is calling “privacy” is just access control. Canton restricts who can see the state.
It's "trust me bro" privacy.
3. “Institutions will start where liquidity is deepest and friction is lowest”
Correct in principle, and precisely why liquidity today lives on Ethereum (+ L2s) and increasingly on Solana. Canton has institutional distribution agreements, which is *not* open and composable liquidity.
4. “Only Canton can measure success in trillions”
Sure, trillions in internal ledger value, permissioned environments, and non-composable assets. You can't measure something that you can't even verify.
If you can’t verify it, you can’t integrate it, and you can’t build on top of it.
It is not onchain. It's fugazzi.