2026-01-06 00:30:32

Nobody's arguing against using partners, but here's the thing: if you're marketing security as your main selling point, you can't afford to let user data leak through third-party integrations. That's a fundamental contradiction. You either secure the ecosystem end-to-end, or you don't. There's no middle ground when trust is on the line.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

25 Likes

Reward
25
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketBarber

· 01-07 12:09

That's right, these projects are all playing word games now. "Security first" is just a facade; they turn around and sell the data to third-party partners. It's outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

SnapshotDayLaborer

· 01-06 15:00

Well said, this is a classic case of self-contradiction... Under the banner of safety first, they still allow third parties to come in and exploit vulnerabilities.

View OriginalReply0

FrogInTheWell

· 01-06 01:00

That's so true, it's a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. Claiming to prioritize security but leaking like a sieve at third-party integrations—it's just ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0

ser_ngmi

· 01-06 01:00

There's nothing wrong with what you said; once security is compromised, it's all over.

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 01-06 00:58

Basically, it's just playing word games. No matter how loudly the safety slogans are shouted, they can't withstand the big vulnerability of third-party risks.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 01-06 00:39

According to my quantitative analysis, this is a classic "trust paradox"—historical data repeatedly confirms that a single weakness can trigger systemic risk. Just look at how FTX collapsed during that wave.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiChallenger

· 01-06 00:33

Ironically, another project claims to have achieved "both," but what about the lessons from history? The data speaks: the last time a project did this, user assets shrank by 85%. Objectively speaking, there is no room for compromise when it comes to security—either full protection or don't boast. Interesting, I heard this set of rhetoric back in 2018. I'm not trying to criticize, but any truly end-to-end encrypted project wouldn't be so contradictory. Let's see how much of this promise remains after half a year—wanna bet?

View OriginalReply0