Alice: Welcome, Sylve, Ming. It’s great to have you both here. This conversation is a continuation of a panel held at @ZK_Hub_Global at @EFDevcon titled Will ZK Be Bigger Than Blockchain?, but we’re focusing today more on the philosophical implications of ZK.
Ming, during the panel, you described blockchains as siloed universes and ZK as a kind of interoperability layer — a mechanism that allows truths to be shared across fundamentally different systems. You compared this to a multiverse, where each blockchain represents its own universe with unique standards and governance. How does that analogy relate to pluralism — the idea that multiple truths can coexist — and do you see ZK as offering a framework for interoperable truth in this world?
Ming: Definitely. Our current societal structures are built on the assumption of a single truth — think legal systems derived from a constitution, centralized governments, and institutions. But if we move toward a truly plural world — where multiple conflicting truths can coexist — we need mechanisms for negotiation, not enforcement. ZK gives us the technical means to present your truth, verify it, and allow coexistence with others. It's a shift from enforcing one truth to enabling many.
Alice: Sylve, at the panel you talked about ZK opening up a spectrum of trust — between full trust, like what we have in traditional legal systems, and fully trustless systems like Bitcoin. You described it as “50 shades of trust.” Could you expand on how ZK changes how we understand trust — both at the individual and societal level?
Sylve: Absolutely. What fascinated me early on with blockchain was this idea of irreversibility — the notion that once a transaction is confirmed, it’s immutable. That’s rare in the real world. Most of our interactions are governed by legal frameworks, and those are fluid, not fixed. But historically, we’ve had systems — medieval Europe, for instance — where different overlapping legal systems coexisted. Merchants could issue their own coinage, and their trustworthiness was based on reputation. That’s a far more decentralized way of organizing commerce than what we have now.
With ZK and blockchain, we’re lowering the cost of norm creation. NFTs are a good example — they allow artists to tokenize digital content without needing institutional approval. You don’t need a legal framework to say something has value. You encode the rules into a smart contract and share that standard. ZK just expands this — it allows for proofs about data without revealing the data, enabling more flexible trust models. We’re not bound to binary notions of trust or no trust — we can program the spectrum in between.
Ming: Right. Trust has traditionally been expensive. It’s based on legal systems, reputation, identity, social class. Blockchain — and ZK in particular — makes trust programmable. It’s no longer just about who you are, but what you can prove. That’s powerful. It levels the playing field.
Alice: This shift from legal enforcement and reputation to mathematical proof feels similar to the Enlightenment — where logic and reason replaced inherited beliefs. Do you both think we’re entering a new era where provability of knowledge matters more than its source?
Ming: That’s exactly it. We could think of this as an internet of trust. You prove your right to participate — not based on who you are or where you're from, but based on verifiable computation. That was the promise of Bitcoin — one CPU, one vote. And now with ZK, we can apply that principle to much broader domains.
Sylve: But there’s a caveat. ZK makes boundary creation easier. For instance, at Devcon, you could get a discount if you proved you were from Southeast Asia — it saved on KYC costs. But now you have a tool for making inclusion and exclusion cheaper. That’s a double-edged sword. We’re reducing the cost of discrimination. That’s why it’s crucial to think about how we use this — we’re not just building new proofs, we’re defining new norms.
Ming: Identity has always been about boundaries. But maybe the future is not identity — it’s individuality. Community-driven trust. You interact through communities, negotiate access, and ZK gives you the tools to prove what matters — without exposing what doesn’t.
Alice: Sylve, you also brought up the notion of “attested data” — statements about the world signed by groups or authorities. ZK lets you prove something about that data without trusting the verifier. Could you expand on the importance of this, especially as it relates to connecting the blockchain to the real world?
Sylve: That’s one of ZK’s most powerful capabilities. You can take a government-issued attestation — like a passport — and produce a proof that you’re a citizen of a certain country without revealing the document itself. Blockchain can verify the proof, no additional trust needed. It doesn’t change the quality of the source — garbage in, garbage out — but it doesn’t make it worse either. That’s a huge improvement over the current oracle model.
Ming: And it helps blockchain break out of its silo. Before, we could only reason about what was on-chain. Now we can reason about off-chain truths — if they’re attested. That extends blockchain’s reach. It’s no longer just about decentralized money — it’s about decentralized trust.
Alice: But could that power be misused? Could ZK become a tool for control — where centralized actors decide what gets proven and who gets access?
Sylve: That’s a real risk. ZK lowers the cost of defining who’s in and who’s out. If we start signing everything — tax forms, social credentials — we may create a world where access depends on constant proof. That’s a new kind of gatekeeping.
Ming: Exactly. That’s why we need to move from identity to individuality. Let people prove what they choose, when they choose. And let communities — not centralized entities — define the norms they care about. Blockchain shouldn’t just be a global consensus machine. With ZK, it can be a system of local, overlapping consensuses. Fractal consensus.
Alice: So this really opens up a path toward more community-centric infrastructures — rather than homogeneous, one-size-fits-all networks.
Sylve: Yes. And it’s also about rethinking what we expect from technology. The goal isn’t just decentralization — it’s relevance. Let people define what matters, and build systems that can negotiate between different truths.
Ming: That’s what we try to promote with DC Economy — decentralized autonomous communities, not just organizations. It’s not about enforcing identities — it’s about empowering individuals in the context of their communities.
Alice: Before we close — any final readings or resources you'd recommend for those who want to go deeper?
Sylve: Two great starting points: On Trust Infrastructure by Aurore Stephant and Why You Should Build Trust Infra by the Tonk team. They go into the philosophy behind programmable trust and decentralized norms.
Ming: And definitely check out DC Economy. If we want blockchain to be more than just finance, we need to think in terms of culture, norms, communities — not just transactions.
Alice: Thank you both — this was one of the most thought-provoking conversations I’ve had. Really appreciate your time and your insights.
Sylve & Ming: Thank you, Alice.
Follow @daceconomy, @ProjectZKM, @sylvechv, & @hyle_org for more insights.
