Onchain privacy hasn't reached product-market fit because the product wasn't right, not because the market is not there. The product (past onchain privacy solutions) wasn't right primarily due to: 1. Lack of zero-compromise privacy. Privacy cannot come at the cost of access to liquidity, low tx fees, and UX. Past solutions had problematic trade-offs. Users, most of the time, care about being able to do the transaction (paying, getting paid, buying an asset, etc.) at all before they care about the privacy of doing it. 2. Lack of threat-resistant privacy. When a major onchain hack happens right now (like the Bybit hack), the status quo is that hacked funds are mostly traceable and can be frozen at any later point at any financial intermediaries like exchanges and off-ramps. This status quo needs to be supported by privacy protocols unless we gain regulatory certainty that such guarantees are not required. Fortunately, we see projects (such as @0xMiden, @inconetwork, and @SeismicSys) solving both issues head-on with pragmatic privacy approaches, relying on a combination of technologies like TEEs, MPC, as well as plain-old security councils.