Economist and author Saifedean Ammous has reignited the discussion over privacy coins by calling Zcash (ZEC) a “shitcoin” in a recent interview. Known for his book The Bitcoin Standard, Ammous expressed doubts about the project’s architecture, particularly its reliance on a 2016 “trusted setup” and the implications of private transactions on the auditability of total supply.
Ammous questioned whether there is real market demand for privacy in money, especially when compared to the desire for a non-debasable, fixed-supply asset like Bitcoin. While acknowledging he is not fully familiar with Zcash’s technical details, he suggested that anonymity may reduce transparency, which he considers critical for monetary systems.
Read also: Can Zcash Overtake Cardano? Market Cap Gap Narrows Fast
Industry Pushback: Privacy and Sound Money Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
The comments drew swift responses from across the crypto industry. Critics of Ammous’s stance argued that his framing creates a false choice between privacy and monetary soundness. Mert Mumtaz, co-founder of Helius, stated that “money should be both private and non-debasable”, and claimed Zcash aims to deliver on both fronts.
Others echoed similar sentiments, pointing out that privacy has historically been a key value for early cryptocurrency communities, including Bitcoin supporters. Barry Silbert, CEO of Digital Currency Group, reminded followers that “many Bitcoiners used to care deeply about privacy”.
Zcash co-founder Zooko Wilcox also joined the conversation. He referenced past events where transparent blockchain data allowed authorities to track Bitcoin-linked donations, highlighting the need for privacy-preserving alternatives. According to Wilcox, Zcash offers both shielded (private) and transparent transactions, giving users flexibility while maintaining verifiability through public blockchain explorers.
Read also: EU’s New AML Regulations: The End of Privacy Coins by 2027?
A Wider Philosophical Divide
At the core of the debate is a difference in priorities. Ammous argues that resistance to debasement is what gives money global utility, and that privacy is secondary or even a distraction. He sees monetary transparency as a non-negotiable foundation for public trust and economic coordination.
By contrast, privacy advocates stress that financial freedom requires privacy by default. They argue that in a digital world, visible transactions could expose users to censorship, surveillance, or seizure – risks that privacy protocols like Zcash are designed to reduce.
Ammous suggested that privacy might be better handled through second-layer solutions built on top of transparent base layers like Bitcoin, rather than via native protocol features. He noted that privacy is becoming harder to achieve on-chain, and expects off-chain solutions to become more practical over time.
Read also: Zcash Reclaims $500 as Winklevoss-Backed Cypherpunk Makes $50M Bet
Conclusion
This debate highlights the growing tension between two goals often pursued in crypto: transparent monetary policy and personal financial privacy. While Ammous’s critique of Zcash has sparked strong reactions, it has also opened a space for discussion about how best to balance these values.
Since Zcash continues to attract institutional interest – including recent treasury allocations by Cypherpunk and Reliance Global – the question may no longer be whether privacy matters, but how it can coexist with broader adoption and trust.
