exos

Canton is what you get if Prometheum was run by people who’s competence matched their narcissism

Nobody is trading at scale on Canton.

I wouldn’t mind Canton being what it is if it weren’t for takes like this. What „permissionless properties”? It is literally a permissioned system with three levels of access restrictions. If you’re dishonest about such obvious, straightforward facts, why should anyone trust you on the more nuanced stuff? After doing some digging, I think there are some interesting things in Canton - I need to write a bit longer piece on this soon - but these completely false claims look desperate and suggest that these guys don’t even value what they’ve built if they have to LARP as something they so clearly ain’t. Bearish.

@Mehmett_0770 @zksync Shut it Karafilyebenebegebineri

@zksync Trash coin

The Prividium Difference 🔐 Private where it matters. 🌎 Connected where it counts. ✅Publicly verifiable.

Memento is enabling onchain privacy for TradFi institutions! A must-to-have prerequisite for institutions to start transacting onchain. The institutional floodgates are about to open 🌊 $DEXTF

You say: "we disagree on whether the user needs to verify all network state or only the state that's economically relevant to them". Oh, we don't disagree here — but this indeed highlights the largest difference between ZKsync and Canton. Of course the user only needs to verify the state that's economically relevant for them. But is "economically relevant state" the same as "state a user is directly involved with"? Consider a total token supply cap. Is it economically relevant for me? Yes, because if you inflate the supply, the value of my holdings will suffer. Am I directly involved in every transaction that mints and burns the token? No. So I'm asking you once again: can something like total supply cap be enforced on Canton?

@HoldingHard @joinelastic @zksync That's your armpits dude, take a shower

@joinelastic @zksync

Banks Don’t Want Promises, They Want Proof: Why @ZKsync’s Prividium Is Winning Institutional Trust Banks are not moving fast into blockchain because they love innovation for its own sake. They are moving because the old infrastructure is failing them, and because regulation has finally cleared the runway. In a recent conversation, ZKsync co-founder and CEO Alex Gluchowski (@gluk64) explained the reality on the ground: “Banks are obviously on the same wave of innovation. They see the progress happening in the crypto world and they are now unblocked by the regulatory enablements… Many banks are still stuck largely in the infrastructure that was built in the 1970s, many of them still around COBOL. So they are jumping from this old era directly into the world of stablecoins, instant settlement, 24-7 markets. But here’s the crucial part most retail observers miss: “They have a much more conservative stance… The requirements from the banking side are, frankly, which was surprising to me, a lot stricter. They are doing a lot deeper technical diligence on how the systems actually work. What are the underlying trust assumptions? How is privacy actually preserved? They are not comfortable with claims and with promises. They need to see the proof.” And that proof is exactly what Prividium delivers.

Fundamentally, the core assumption of tradfi, is that people can’t be trusted with their own money or finances. It’s inherently paternalistic and I reject it entirely. Those that don’t reject that premise will always be enslaved. Canton is great tech for slaves.

"Banks do deep technical analysis on how blockchains work, what are the underlying assumptions and how is privacy actually preserved. They aren't comfortable with promises." @gluk64 explaining why Prividiums are purpose-built for institutional adoption on @CryptoAmerica_

Thank you Shaul. This is how the conversation should happen. A few corrections, then a bigger point. On the strawman claim. Your March 20 thread called ZK privacy "the perfect crime," said "there's no recourse," and concluded it "isn't sufficient for a systemic risk." No mention of mitigation, layered defense, or conditions under which it could work. That's a disqualifying argument, and I responded to it as one. If your position has evolved to "build in resiliency and containment," great, we agree. But that's not what you wrote eight days ago. On multi-prover. My point stands as written: today Prividium has two independent defense layers (institutional node security and ZK proofs), Canton has one (trusted operators). With RISC-V convergence and multiple zkVMs standardizing on Ethereum-native proofs, the third layer is close. But even without it, the count is 2 vs. 1. On smart contract bugs. You suggest that a non-ZKP bug could let an insider mint tokens that propagate downstream. But it's the exact same problem with Canton. Your Validator nodes execute the buggy contract and propagate invalid state to every counterparty enforcing the contract as written; they don't catch logic bugs. That's a property of every programmable ledger, not a Prividium problem. On self-validation. You claim Canton stakeholders "cryptographically validate all state transitions on their own node," while Prividium users just "rely on the institution's prover and receive verified data." Both parts are not true. Canton stakeholders only validate transitions their own account is involved with, they see nothing else. And Prividium participants can do exactly the same thing: verify their own account state at every block via Merkle proofs, not ZKP-dependent, the same hash-based mechanism every blockchain uses. But this brings us to a much bigger problem. Your entire reply is about bilateral verification. And the next generation of institutional applications requires smart contracts that enforce aggregate network state: issuance caps, pool-level margin, concentration limits at the point of trade, etc. Can Canton do that?

This is the crowd we are dealing with here. In what sense do you think ZKsync and Canton goals are comparable to Hyperliquid's goals?

Interesting debate. Canton has its place for internal bank coordination, but let’s be clear: it’s a permissioned environment. 🛡️ In 20 years of risk management, I’ve seen that 'Committee Approvals' and 'Allowlisting' work well for closed groups, but they don't scale trust globally. They still rely on a central sponsor's permission. I’m shifting my focus to @zksync because the ZK Stack uses enforceable logic to remove that single point of failure. Both models will likely coexist, but for a truly public Bank Stack, I'm betting on the math. 🇨🇭

@reikopuls @gluk64 @zksync I genuinely can't tell if you're minimally exceptional or trying to apear like you are

@gluk64 @zksync When (not if) the 5 banks collapse because a silent ZKP bug gets exploited, Matter Labs will get sued, disappear and the law will ban the use of ZKPs in finance

Ethereum is where real tokenization is happening. @ZKsync Prividium extends it with institutional privacy.

When the former U.S. Comptroller of the Currency chooses @ZKsync over Canton, the 'Institutional War' enters a new phase. It’s the ultimate validation that 'Hard Guarantees' win—but only when paired with bank-grade safety. Cari Network isn’t just a win for ZK-math; it’s the first real-world implementation of what we call Institutional Web3 Governance (IW3G). With $600B in deposits moving on-chain via Prividium, the 'Web2 perimeter' can no longer be a hobby. This is where high-stakes OpSec meets permissionless settlement. The standard is being set. 🛡️ #IW3G #ZKsync #Banking #CariNetwork

@reikopuls @lex_node @ElonTrades @gluk64

@lex_node @ElonTrades @gluk64 You make up things a bit don't you

Canton is now playing the victim card a bit...it's important not to let them do this, the entire project (going back many many years) is based on aggressive FUD against public permissionless blockchains...for example they argued that EVM is somehow intrinsically 'non-compliant' because it is possible for unauthorized people to *try* to call an auth-gated function in a smart contract even if the call would fail because they are not auth'd according to the smart contract logic...that regulatory FUD was the main thesis for why DAML needs to exist at all...and of course is absolute nonsense to any lawyer who knows anything & thinks for 5 seconds... I won't be posting much more about them, I said basically everything I care about here (x.com/lex_node/statu…) and prefer to spend my time building the better alternative

@HoldingHard Wow such intellect

@xetoexos Well then you should be good at problem solving but you still asked me a question about my profile picture… odd… what’s the third letter of the alphabet?

All eyes on ZKsync All eyes on $ZK

@dgoker_ Thank you

@xetoexos Fuck you

Incisive piece raising the question the entire tokenized securities industry skipped: what is the token, as a matter of law? Is it the security itself? An instruction to a transfer agent? A receipt for a record that lives somewhere else? Turns out, almost every protocol shipped compliance infrastructure without answering this first. The result is tokens that exist onchain, but the actual ownership record still sits with an intermediary offchain. Every institution still reconciles against an offchain ledger. Settlement still waits on intermediary processing. Collateral can't move freely because the token doesn't carry its own legal weight. You've added a technology layer without removing the friction it was supposed to eliminate. Gabe's answer: the onchain state has to be legally authoritative. The obvious objection is privacy. No institution will put its real ledger on a public chain in plaintext. But as Gabe argues, privacy and public-chain settlement aren't in tension if you put the privacy at the right layer. As he puts it: "ZKsync's Prividium is the most developed version of this architecture, already in use by Deutsche Bank and several US regional banks"