Many people have asked for my take on Tornado Cash. Here it is: Like any new technology, there are actors who'll use new tech for good & for bad. ZK is no different. Take the early Internet itself for example. There was Napster & Spotify. Both allowed users to download and stream music from the web. Napster decided to help users circumvent the system, while Spotify integrated with artists, labels, and the music industry. One failed, while the other thrived. Privacy tech faces the same divide today. Tornado Cash became synonymous with evading financial oversight, an approach that was never going to achieve mainstream adoption. Meanwhile, private tech is now capable of being used to demonstrate compliance while protecting legitimate privacy interests. And ZK applications now extend into new territory: financial compliance, identity & age verification, and even governance & voter integrity. Having spent years building the foundational ZK tech that powers today's privacy protocols, I've seen how this technology can transform regulatory compliance from a burden into a competitive advantage. Vilifying ZK & privacy tech, along with its developers, because of Tornado Cash hurts everyone. And as a US developer, what many don't seem to realize is the risk of pushing innovation offshore instead of developing frameworks to demonstrate compliance. American-built privacy tech needs thoughtful policies, not blanket prohibition. The question isn't whether privacy will survive regulatory scrutiny; it's whether it will evolve to integrate with regulatory frameworks. Privacy will be achieved through compliance, not despite it.