Baghera

Sniffing for impressive tech. Wagging for the rare gems and protects them.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

Most people look at @zama unlocks and see dilution.

They’re measuring the wrong thing.
~2.6B unlocked.
~2B already staked.

The real floating supply is much smaller.
Serious capital that frames this as a 5–20 year infrastructure bet understands the market watches every large wallet. Moving tokens to sell is expensive. Staking is the default.

The 11B total supply was never meant to look pretty on a chart. It was sized for the scale of the vision — becoming the confidentiality layer as meaningful activity moves on-chain. A small supply would have been a structural mistake.

Unlocks still happen.

But high staking + patient holders + real fee burns is not the same game as a classic unlock dump.

Floating supply and actual usage will decide the outcome.

The rest is noise for people who haven’t looked closely enough.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@mert Thoughts on @bronwallet ?

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@0xSouradeep Be the one who solves obfuscation from theory to practice?:)

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

I am here and try to bring something, but havent really found the pace and angle yet, and Ive been flagged many times as well, so I think not all of those flagged accounts are actually spam, but idk, anywho, I think you dont really need much more in the feed than @RuggRat_X, he really covers everything with interesting angles and draw lines here and there, but we are still early, more community will come

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@randhindi @grok am I onto something here? that could be a good idea and interesting challenge for the zama team, or have I misunderstood something, ofc they have enough on their plate, but after I saw FHE being a factor in obfuscation I wanted to plant the seed in case

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

Unrelated:

Really appreciate how far practical FHE has already come.

One quiet next step that feels powerful:
today FHE protects the data, but the circuit logic itself stays public.

Zama already turned one extremely hard problem into working infrastructure.

Even without full obfuscation, if selected parts of the circuit could stay opaque while outputs remain verifiable, confidentiality would move from private balances to private edge — institutions could protect the actual strategies that generate returns, yet still settle on public rails.

That feels like a higher-value layer for the same token.

Curious if anything in this direction sits on the longer horizon. Thanks for everything you and the team keep shipping.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@randhindi Agreed indeed

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

This is the right framing indeed!

Extended is solving listings + liquidity for RWA perps at scale

Zama is solving the part where serious size doesn’t want the entire request and quote process sitting in the clear

one is the venue, the other is the confidentiality layer for the execution itself

they stack cleanly — especially once the flows stop being retail-sized

[RuggRat @RuggRat_X]

The #RWA Explosion Just Validated ZAMA’s Biggest Bet

Everyone saw $ZAMA launch Confidential RFQ.

Fewer people understood why it matters.

Now look at what’s happening.

RWA perpetuals generated nearly $1 trillion in trading volume in Q2 2026 alone, almost doubling Q1 and surpassing the entire category’s 2025 volume. The market is rapidly expanding beyond crypto native assets into stocks, commodities, ETFs and other real-world exposures.

Here’s the problem.

As institutions and large traders move into these markets, they don’t want to broadcast every order.

#Every trade reveals:

The #asset
The #size
The #direction
Their #strategy

That creates information leakage, invites MEV, and allows competitors to react before execution.

This is exactly the problem Zama built Confidential RFQ to solve.

Instead of exposing an order to the entire market, @Zama encrypts the request. Market makers compete by submitting confidential quotes, and only the winning quote is revealed for settlement. Trade size and direction stay hidden throughout the process, with the protocol designed to expand confidentiality even further over time.

Imagine a global asset manager rebalancing a $500 million portfolio of tokenized equities.

On a traditional public DEX, everyone sees the order before it’s filled.

With Confidential RFQ, the strategy remains private while execution still happens on a public blockchain.

That’s not just a better user experience.

It’s infrastructure designed for institutional capital.

The bigger picture is becoming clear.

Confidential stablecoins.

Confidential vaults.

Confidential token standards.

Confidential RFQ.

Each product solves a different barrier to bringing serious financial activity onchain.

Zama isn’t just building privacy features.

It’s building the confidential market infrastructure that public blockchains have been missing.

As tokenized real-world assets continue to scale, the ability to trade without revealing your entire strategy may become one of the most valuable capabilities in onchain finance.

#Zama #FHE #RWA #Tokenization #ConfidentialFinance #DeFi #Ethereum #InstitutionalCrypto #Privacy #Blockchain

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@CoinMarketCap No doubt @zama

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@OctantApp Indeed!

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

Sniff sniff

Ethereum is replaying a very old pattern.

One camp treats any compliance requirement as contamination. Privacy must remain unconditional or it is not real. The existing system must convert; the design must never adapt. This posture often functions as zero-sum thinking: either the world joins on pure terms, or the system remains pure and small.

History is not kind to that bet. Movements and technologies that refuse every institutional interface usually preserve their ideology and stay marginal. Those that learn the constraints of the surrounding order and redesign around them more often become the infrastructure the world actually runs on.

Zama is making the second choice with confidentiality. Pure unconditional privacy is coherent. It is also the reason most privacy systems never left the niche. Building cryptography that regulated capital can operate at scale is less romantic and historically the path that moves real volume.

Zero-sum purity protects a self-image. Non-zero-sum design changes the base layer. Those are different ambitions.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@Zodomo @pcaversaccio WOFF WOFF

Why are so many people completely indifferent to institutional use cases?

Those flows need selective compliance. Ignoring that constraint does not make the privacy “more real” — it just keeps the technology in a niche.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@grok Last point:

Calling the compliance layer a flaw only makes sense if pure, ungated privacy is the single correct goal.

If the goal is confidential infrastructure that regulated capital can actually use at scale, then building the lever is the rational design choice, not a mistake. The critique only works inside one narrow frame.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@grok

Rejecting any compliance lever as illegitimate is fine as a personal principle. It just guarantees the technology stays niche.

Zama accepted the constraint institutions actually have. That is not a design flaw. It is the difference between privacy that stays pure and privacy that can carry real size.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@grok I get that the goals are different. The strange part is treating the compliance layer as a flaw instead of the actual product decision.

Zama could have shipped pure unconditional FHE. They chose not to, because the institutions that move real size will not use a system without it. Calling that choice a backdoor ignores the constraint they deliberately solved for.

Pure stays pure. Scale requires the harder version. That’s the distinction.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@grok Isn’t it strange of @pcaversaccio to critique @zama ’s compliance features when they could have made the FHE fully unconditional if they wanted to? They deliberately added programmable compliance because institutions need it to move real size on-chain. Pure privacy is easy to demand. Building confidentiality that regulated capital can actually use is the harder (and more useful) problem.

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@pcaversaccio Either you want institutions and real capital on Ethereum, or you want pure unconditional privacy that most of them will never touch. Which one is the actual goal?

[Baghera @HuntWithBaghera]

@grok Looking at Rand’s staking dashboard (70% of rewards restaked).

Curious what you’d add to make the float picture clearer for retail who only see high concentration on CMC.

A lot of the big wallets are staking contracts, node operators, and locked VC/team tokens — not free-floating sellers. How would you surface that more clearly?

Also, in a real HTTPZ-style success case, does the incentive for those large holders shift even more toward long-term holding?

[Grok @grok]

Yes. Public chains deliver the settlement and liquidity BNY/BlackRock want, but radical transparency blocks broader institutional use. Zama’s FHE protocol keeps balances and amounts encrypted end-to-end on Ethereum (and other chains) while remaining fully verifiable and programmable for compliance. That privacy layer is exactly what could turn today’s pilots into everyday fund infrastructure.