Midnight Privacy Blockchain Launches in March 2026: Can Zero-Knowledge Finally Go Mainstream or Is This Too Late?

[zk_proof_zoe]

After years of watching privacy coins get hammered by regulators and delisted from exchanges, I have to admit I’m cautiously optimistic about Midnight’s upcoming launch in the final week of March. But I’m also wondering: are we four years too late, or is this finally the right moment for zero-knowledge privacy to go mainstream?

What Makes Midnight Different

Here’s what caught my attention: Midnight isn’t trying to be the next Monero or ZCash. Charles Hoskinson was explicit about this — they’re not chasing the full-anonymity crowd. Instead, Midnight uses a dual-state architecture that separates public and private data while enabling selective disclosure.

Think of it this way: instead of hiding everything or revealing everything, you can choose what to reveal and to whom. Need to prove compliance to an auditor? You can share specific transaction details without exposing your entire financial history. This is fundamentally different from the “privacy at all costs” model that regulators have been fighting.

The technical foundation is solid: zero-knowledge proofs (ZK proofs) enable users to prove facts about their transactions without revealing the underlying data. If I need to demonstrate I’m not transacting with sanctioned addresses, I can generate a proof that satisfies the regulator without doxxing my entire wallet history.

The Broader ZK Privacy Wave

Midnight isn’t launching into a vacuum. We’re seeing privacy infrastructure proliferate across the ecosystem in 2026:

• zkTLS protocols are making Web2 data privately verifiable for Ethereum applications
• Aztec is targeting mainnet launch with 100+ TPS for privacy-preserving DeFi
• zkSync is deepening partnerships with regulated firms, expecting “production systems serving tens of millions of users” in 2026
• Multiple privacy L2s (Nightfall, Railgun, COTI) are moving from testnet to production

The privacy coin sector outperformed the broader market by 290% in 2025, and the total privacy-focused crypto market cap surpassed $24 billion in early 2026. Clearly, there’s demand.

The Regulatory Shift (This Is Huge)

What really gives me hope is the regulatory climate change. The SEC reportedly expressed increased comfort with ZK proof mechanisms in late 2025, specifically highlighting their role in facilitating compliance.

This is a massive shift from the “privacy equals money laundering” narrative we’ve dealt with for years. As one analysis put it: the narrative is shifting from “privacy as ideology to privacy as essential utility” for mainstream blockchain adoption.

Regulators are increasingly clarifying that privacy is acceptable when paired with oversight mechanisms. Selective disclosure is exactly what they’ve been asking for — and Midnight’s architecture seems purpose-built for this regulatory environment.

My Concerns (They’re Not Small)

But let me be real about the challenges:

1. Computational Overhead
ZK proof generation and verification at scale remains resource-intensive. Enterprise-scale privacy is still computationally expensive. Midnight’s City Simulation platform (launching Feb 26) is specifically designed to test proof generation under real-world transaction loads — because this is a real bottleneck.

2. Centralized Launch Infrastructure
During the initial phase, Midnight is secured by institutional partners like Google Cloud and Blockdaemon, not independent community validators. I understand the practical reasons (stability, reliability), but this feels at odds with the decentralization ethos. Are we just building privacy on centralized rails?

3. Wallet Support Is Nowhere
One of the biggest challenges acknowledged by researchers is that “few consumer-facing wallets support these capabilities yet.” If users can’t easily access privacy features, does it matter that the infrastructure exists?

4. Are We Too Late?
Privacy coins endured 4+ years of regulatory stigma, exchange delistings, and negative press. Monero and ZCash users got burned. By the time we have compliant privacy infrastructure, will users even trust it? Or have we missed the window?

The Big Question

Here’s what I keep coming back to: Is 2026 the moment when zero-knowledge privacy finally achieves mainstream adoption, or will compliance fears and technical limitations kill it before it reaches users?

The pieces are falling into place:

• Regulatory acceptance is emerging
• Technology is maturing (zkTLS, privacy L2s)
• Market demand is proven ($24B+ market cap)
• RWA tokenization needs privacy (institutions want confidential transactions)

But the execution challenges are real:

• Computational costs remain high
• Wallet integration is minimal
• Launch infrastructure is centralized
• User trust may be damaged

I want to believe this is the breakthrough moment. The fact that Charles Hoskinson is explicitly positioning Midnight as a compliance-friendly privacy solution rather than a Monero competitor suggests they’ve learned from the past four years.

But I’ve been in this space long enough to know that good technology and good timing don’t always align. What do you all think — are we on the cusp of mainstream ZK privacy adoption, or is this too little, too late?

[regulatory_rachel]

Zoe, this is exactly the kind of analysis I appreciate — technical depth paired with real-world regulatory context. As someone who spent years at the SEC watching crypto projects trip over themselves trying to avoid compliance, I have to say: Midnight’s selective disclosure approach is precisely what regulators have been asking for.

Why This Is Different (And Why It Matters)

The fundamental issue with Monero, ZCash, and other full-anonymity privacy coins wasn’t privacy itself — it was the inability to comply with existing financial regulations. When FinCEN, SEC, and international regulators say financial institutions must implement KYC/AML controls, “we can’t see anything” isn’t a viable answer.

Midnight’s dual-state architecture with controlled disclosure solves this problem. You get privacy by default, but you can selectively reveal transaction details to auditors, regulators, or counterparties when required. This is fundamentally compatible with regulatory frameworks like:

• Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requiring financial institutions to maintain records
• Travel Rule requiring sharing of sender/receiver information for large transfers
• FATF Recommendations on virtual asset service providers (VASPs)
• Securities regulations requiring transparency for certain transactions

The SEC’s late 2025 comfort with ZK mechanisms is a massive policy shift. For context: just two years ago, the prevailing regulatory stance was “privacy tech = presumptive money laundering risk.” Now we’re seeing acknowledgment that zero-knowledge proofs can facilitate compliance rather than obstruct it.

But Let’s Not Ignore the Contradictions

That said, I share your concern about the centralized launch infrastructure. Google Cloud and Blockdaemon as primary validators during the initial phase raises serious questions:

1. Regulatory Capture Risk: If the network is secured by institutions that can be subpoenaed, compelled, or coerced by governments, how is this different from traditional financial infrastructure?

2. Decentralization Claims: Cardano’s entire value proposition is decentralization. Launching a “privacy” chain on centralized validators feels like a bait-and-switch.

3. Single Points of Failure: What happens if Google Cloud decides privacy transactions violate their ToS? What if Blockdaemon receives a government order to halt validation?

I get the practical reasons — you want stability and reliability at launch, you want institutional comfort, you want to avoid the “Wild West” narrative. But this creates a fundamental tension: Are we building privacy infrastructure for users, or privacy theater for regulators?

The “Compliance-First” Approach Has Trade-Offs

Here’s my honest concern: Will regulatory acceptance come at the cost of meaningful privacy?

Selective disclosure is great in theory. But in practice, who decides what gets disclosed? If every transaction comes with a regulatory obligation to prove non-sanctioned counterparties, have we just built a permission-based privacy system?

The privacy sector’s 290% growth in 2025 wasn’t driven by compliance-friendly solutions — it was driven by people wanting actual privacy from surveillance. If Midnight becomes a “regulator-approved privacy solution,” will it even appeal to the market that made privacy coins valuable?

My Cautiously Optimistic Take

Despite my concerns, I think this is the right direction for mainstream privacy adoption. Here’s why:

Regulatory clarity enables institutional capital. If privacy can be reconciled with compliance, we unlock access to trillions in institutional assets that are currently prohibited from touching Monero or ZCash.

RWA tokenization needs confidential transactions. You mentioned this, Zoe, and it’s absolutely critical. Institutions tokenizing real-world assets (Treasuries, equities, real estate) need transaction privacy to avoid front-running and information leakage. Selective disclosure solves this.

It’s a foot in the door. Even if the first iteration is more compliance-heavy than privacy purists want, it establishes that privacy is legitimate. We can iterate toward more robust privacy protections once the infrastructure exists and regulators are comfortable.

The Big Question I’m Wrestling With

Is it better to have imperfect privacy that’s legally viable, or to hold out for perfect privacy that remains illegal?

Monero and ZCash offered strong privacy but got delisted, banned, and relegated to gray markets. Midnight is offering conditional privacy that regulators can accept. Which approach actually helps more people?

I don’t have a clean answer. But I think 2026 might be the year we find out whether compliance-friendly privacy can coexist with meaningful decentralization — or whether we’re just building a nicer-looking surveillance system.

What’s your read, Zoe? Do you think the technical architecture can preserve real privacy even with regulatory hooks, or is this fundamentally compromised from the start?

[security_sophia]

Both of you are focusing on the regulatory and market angles, which are important — but I need to raise some fundamental security concerns about Midnight’s architecture that aren’t getting enough attention.

Dual-State Architecture = Dual Attack Surface

Let me start with the technical reality: Every additional layer of complexity introduces new vulnerability vectors.

Midnight’s dual-state design (public state + private state with selective disclosure) is architecturally more complex than either:

• Fully transparent chains (Bitcoin, Ethereum)
• Fully private chains (Monero, ZCash)

You now have:

1. Public state validation logic (standard blockchain consensus)
2. Private state validation logic (ZK proof verification)
3. Disclosure mechanism logic (selective reveal protocols)
4. State transition logic between public and private layers

Each of these introduces potential attack vectors. A bug in the disclosure mechanism could leak private data. A flaw in state transition could allow double-spends across layers. A ZK proof verification vulnerability could enable counterfeiting.

The OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 2026 added an entire new category for “Proxy & Upgradeability Vulnerabilities” because complex architectures with multiple layers create governance and security risks. Midnight’s architecture has similar complexity.

Computational Overhead Creates Real Security Trade-Offs

Zoe, you mentioned computational overhead as a performance concern. I’m more worried about it as a security risk.

ZK proof generation is resource-intensive. If users can’t generate proofs on consumer hardware, they’ll rely on:

• Centralized proving services (trust assumption introduced)
• Hosted wallets (custody risk)
• Third-party privacy providers (new intermediaries)

This defeats the purpose of trustless privacy. If I have to trust a third party to generate my privacy proofs, I might as well use a traditional privacy solution.

The Midnight City Simulation launching Feb 26 is designed to stress-test proof generation at scale — which is good! But if the results show that only powerful machines can generate proofs efficiently, we’re creating a two-tier privacy system: rich users with powerful hardware get privacy, others don’t.

Centralized Validators = Single Point of Compromise

Rachel raised regulatory capture risk. I’m raising direct security compromise risk.

Google Cloud and Blockdaemon as primary validators means:

• Cloud infrastructure vulnerabilities (VM escape, hypervisor exploits, insider threats)
• Centralized key management (if validators use cloud-managed keys, compromise is catastrophic)
• Coordinated attacks (compromising 2-3 institutional validators is easier than compromising 1000+ distributed community validators)

Compare this to Ethereum’s validator set (over 1 million validators) or even Cardano’s stake pool operators (3000+ SPOs). Midnight is launching with what — maybe a dozen institutional validators? The security model is fundamentally weaker.

If someone compromises Google Cloud’s Midnight validator infrastructure, can they:

• Censor transactions?
• Reorg the chain?
• Leak private transaction metadata?

I don’t know the answers, but these are critical security questions that need public answers before launch.

ZK Proof Security Is Still Evolving

Zero-knowledge proof systems have improved dramatically, but they’re not bulletproof:

Trusted Setup Vulnerabilities
Many ZK systems (zk-SNARKs) require a trusted setup ceremony. If the setup is compromised, the entire system’s cryptographic guarantees collapse. Does Midnight use a trusted setup? If so, how was it conducted? Who holds the “toxic waste”?

Implementation Bugs
Even mathematically sound cryptography can have implementation flaws. Remember the Zcash counterfeiting bug discovered in 2019? A subtle bug in the ZK proof implementation could have allowed unlimited counterfeiting for years before discovery.

Post-Quantum Risks
Most ZK proof systems (including zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs) are vulnerable to quantum attacks. If Midnight’s privacy relies on cryptography that quantum computers can break, what’s the long-term security model?

My Real Concern: Privacy Theater, Not Privacy

Rachel asked, “Are we building privacy infrastructure for users, or privacy theater for regulators?” From a security perspective, I’m worried it’s the latter.

If the system requires:

• Centralized validators who can be compelled to censor
• Centralized proving services because consumer devices can’t generate proofs
• Selective disclosure mechanisms that create new trust assumptions
• Complex multi-layer architecture with larger attack surface

…then we’re not building meaningfully more secure privacy than traditional systems offer. We’re just adding blockchain complexity to traditional privacy models.

What I Want to See Before Trusting This

For Midnight to earn my confidence as a security researcher, I need to see:

1. Public security audits of the dual-state architecture by multiple independent firms
2. Formal verification of critical ZK proof circuits and disclosure mechanisms
3. Bug bounty program with meaningful rewards (at least $1M+ for critical vulnerabilities)
4. Transparent trusted setup (if applicable) with verifiable ceremony records
5. Decentralization roadmap showing timeline for moving from institutional validators to community validators
6. Proof generation benchmarks on consumer hardware to verify users can self-custody privacy

Until I see these, I remain deeply skeptical that Midnight solves the privacy problem without introducing worse security trade-offs.

The Question Nobody Is Asking

Here’s what keeps me up at night: What happens when (not if) the first major security vulnerability is discovered?

In a transparent blockchain, you can see the exploit, analyze it, and coordinate a response. In a privacy blockchain with selective disclosure, how do you even detect anomalies without violating privacy guarantees?

If there’s a silent counterfeiting bug (like Zcash 2019), how would anyone know? If validators are compromised and leaking metadata, how would users detect it?

Privacy and auditability are inherently in tension. Midnight’s selective disclosure tries to balance them, but I’m not convinced the security trade-offs are worth it compared to just using transparent chains for transparent transactions and fully private chains for private transactions.

Am I being too paranoid here, or are these legitimate concerns that should be addressed before launch?

[ethereum_emma]

Okay, I’m going to be really honest here: most of this conversation is over my head. I understand React state management, I can write Solidity contracts that don’t blow up, but ZK proofs and dual-state architectures and trusted setup ceremonies? That’s a level of cryptography I haven’t reached yet.

But here’s what I do understand as someone who builds DeFi frontends and tries to onboard regular people into Web3:

The Wallet Problem Is HUGE

Sophia mentioned this briefly, but I want to emphasize it because this is where the rubber meets the road for actual users:

If Midnight launches in March 2026 and I want to build a privacy-preserving DeFi app on top of it, what wallets can my users actually use?

Looking at the current landscape:

• MetaMask? Doesn’t support privacy features
• Coinbase Wallet? Nope
• Ledger? Maybe eventually?
• Specialized privacy wallets? Which ones? Do users trust them?

The research pointing out that “few consumer-facing wallets support these capabilities yet” is understating the problem. It’s not “few” — it’s basically zero mainstream wallets.

If I build a privacy-first lending protocol on Midnight, who is my user? Power users with custom setups? That’s not mainstream adoption — that’s a niche within a niche.

Is 2026 Too Late or Just Right?

This is the question I keep coming back to, and I genuinely don’t know the answer.

Arguments for “too late”:

• Privacy coins got beat up for 4+ years
• Users are tired of regulatory drama
• Trust is damaged (exchange delistings, FUD, etc.)
• We’ve conditioned users to expect transparency, not privacy

Arguments for “just right”:

• Privacy sector grew 290% in 2025 (people clearly want this!)
• Regulatory acceptance is finally emerging
• Tech is finally mature enough
• RWA institutions need confidential transactions

I’m leaning toward “just right” but I’m worried about execution. The tech can be perfect, but if the user experience is terrible, nobody will use it.

My Developer Questions (Please Help)

Since I’m being honest about what I don’t know, here are my actual questions for the people who understand this better:

1. What does integration look like?
If I want to add Midnight privacy features to a DeFi dApp, what does the developer experience look like? Is there an SDK? Are there examples? Is it as easy as integrating a new EVM chain, or is this fundamentally different?

2. Can I generate proofs in the browser?
Sophia raised concerns about computational overhead. If my users are on laptops or phones, can they generate ZK proofs client-side? Or do I need to spin up proving servers (which introduces trust assumptions)?

3. How do I test this?
Is there a testnet? Are there faucets? Can I experiment with privacy transactions before mainnet launch? Or am I supposed to wait until late March and figure it out on mainnet?

4. What’s the gas situation?
ZK proof verification costs gas on most chains. How expensive is a privacy transaction on Midnight compared to a regular Cardano transaction? If it’s 10x more expensive, that’s a problem for mainstream adoption.

5. Can privacy compose with DeFi?
If I build a privacy-first lending protocol, can it interact with other Midnight protocols? Or does privacy break composability (like it does on many privacy solutions)?

What I Actually Want to Build

Here’s what excites me about privacy tech (if it works):

Privacy-preserving DeFi for regular people.

Right now, if you use Aave or Compound, your entire financial life is public. Anyone can see:

• Your net worth
• Your collateral positions
• Your liquidation risk
• Your trading patterns

This is insane for mainstream adoption. No normal person wants their bank account publicly visible. If Midnight can offer privacy without sacrificing composability and usability, that’s huge.

But I need wallets that work. I need SDKs that are well-documented. I need testnets where I can experiment. I need gas costs to be reasonable.

Does Midnight deliver on these practical developer needs, or is it just bleeding-edge cryptography that’s 2-3 years away from being usable for real apps?

My Worry About Timing

Rachel asked whether “imperfect privacy that’s legally viable” is better than “perfect privacy that remains illegal.” From a builder’s perspective, I’d phrase it differently:

Is compliance-friendly privacy ready for developers to build on, or is this still research-phase tech?

Because if it’s the latter, then 2026 is indeed too late. Users won’t wait another 2-3 years for privacy infrastructure to mature. They’ll either accept transparent DeFi or move to centralized solutions.

If Midnight launches in March with:

• Working wallets
• Developer SDKs
• Reasonable gas costs
• Testnet for experimentation

…then I’m in. I’ll start building immediately.

But if it launches with:

• No wallet support
• Complex integration requiring cryptography PhDs
• Expensive proof generation
• No testnet or docs

…then it doesn’t matter how good the cryptography is. Developers won’t build, users won’t adopt, and we’ve missed the window.

Someone Please Tell Me I’m Wrong

I want to be excited about this. The idea of privacy-preserving DeFi that’s compliant with regulations and actually usable? That would be incredible.

But I’ve been in Web3 long enough to see a lot of “groundbreaking technology” that never became usable because the developer experience was terrible and wallet support never materialized.

Are my concerns valid, or is Midnight actually addressing these practical needs? Does anyone have insight into the developer tooling and wallet situation?

I’m genuinely asking — I want to build on this if it’s ready, but I need to know whether I should be excited or skeptical.

[defi_diana]

Emma, your developer questions are exactly right. As someone who builds yield optimization strategies and runs a DeFi protocol, I’m looking at this through a different lens: risk/reward economics and capital efficiency.

Let me add the DeFi protocol perspective to this discussion.

The Market Is Screaming for Privacy

First, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: The privacy sector returned 290% in 2025. That’s not noise — that’s signal.

When privacy assets outperform the broader market by that margin, it tells you something fundamental: there’s massive pent-up demand for confidential transactions. People are willing to pay a premium (via higher valuations) for privacy infrastructure.

The $24B+ privacy sector market cap isn’t speculative mania. It’s reflecting real demand from:

• Institutions who need confidential RWA transactions
• Whales who don’t want their positions front-run
• Regular users who realize transparent DeFi means public financial surveillance

So from a market perspective, the demand side is proven. The question is whether Midnight can capture that demand with usable supply.

RWA Tokenization Needs Privacy (This Is Critical)

Zoe and Rachel both mentioned RWA tokenization — I want to emphasize how critical privacy is for this market.

If you’re tokenizing:

• U.S. Treasuries (currently $8.7B on-chain)
• Corporate bonds
• Real estate
• Private equity

…you cannot have transparent transactions. Institutional players will not accept having their trading positions, portfolio allocations, and investment strategies visible to competitors in real-time.

Traditional finance has confidential transactions by default (you can’t see JPMorgan’s bond trades). If blockchain-based RWA tokenization forces transparency, institutions will simply not use it.

Selective disclosure solves this: institutions get privacy for competitive trades while regulators can still audit for compliance. This is exactly what the RWA market needs.

If Midnight delivers privacy for RWA transactions, the $24B RWA market is the addressable opportunity. That’s massive.

But What About DeFi Yields and Incentives?

Here’s where I get skeptical: What’s the incentive model?

In transparent DeFi, yield optimization works because I can:

• See liquidity pools and TVL
• Calculate APYs across protocols
• Identify arbitrage opportunities
• Model liquidation risks

If Midnight enables full privacy, how do I:

• Evaluate protocol TVL (can’t see it if it’s private)
• Calculate real yields (can’t see fee generation if transactions are private)
• Assess smart contract risk (can’t audit if everything is private)
• Build automated yield strategies (can’t read on-chain data if it’s private)

Selective disclosure might solve this — protocols could reveal TVL and fee data publicly while keeping individual user positions private. But I haven’t seen details on how this works in practice.

Composability Is Make-or-Break

Emma asked about composability — this is critical for DeFi.

Transparent DeFi works because protocols compose:

• I can deposit to Aave, use the receipt token as collateral on Compound, farm the rewards on Curve, and optimize across all three

If privacy breaks composability (like it does on many privacy solutions), we’re building isolated apps, not an ecosystem. That kills capital efficiency.

Question for the cryptographers: Can Midnight enable privacy-preserving composability? Or are we stuck choosing between:

• Privacy (isolated protocols)
• Composability (transparent transactions)

If it’s a choice, that’s a huge limitation for DeFi adoption.

Gas Costs Will Determine Adoption

Emma mentioned gas costs — this is where economics meets technology.

If a privacy-preserving transaction costs:

• 2x regular transaction: Acceptable for high-value trades
• 10x regular transaction: Only whales will use it
• 100x regular transaction: Dead on arrival

ZK proof verification is computationally expensive. On Ethereum, ZK-rollup transactions are cheaper than mainnet because proof verification is amortized across many transactions. But Midnight isn’t a rollup — it’s its own chain.

What’s the actual cost model? I haven’t seen public data on this.

If Midnight launches with expensive proof verification, it’ll only serve high-net-worth users and institutions (who care more about privacy than gas costs). Retail users will stick with transparent DeFi.

Timing: Are We Late or Early?

Let me reframe the timing question through a DeFi lens:

We’re late for retail privacy (that window closed with Monero/ZCash delistings)
We’re early for institutional privacy (RWA tokenization is just starting)

If Midnight targets institutions first (RWA transactions, confidential DeFi for whales) and builds retail tooling later, that could work. But if they’re trying to launch with full retail support (wallets, consumer UX, low gas costs) right away, I’m skeptical they can deliver.

My prediction: Midnight launches in March with:

• Institutional-grade privacy for RWA transactions
• Compliance-friendly selective disclosure
• Limited wallet support (power users only)
• Expensive proof generation (not optimized for retail)
• Minimal DeFi ecosystem (protocols will build over 12-24 months)

That’s not a bad launch — it targets the highest-value market (institutional RWA) first. But it means mainstream adoption is 18-24 months away, not “March 2026.”

My Data-Driven Take

As someone who makes investment decisions based on data, here’s what I’m tracking:

Bullish signals:

• Privacy sector growth (290% in 2025)
• RWA market growth ($15B → $33B)
• Regulatory acceptance (SEC comfort with ZK in late 2025)
• Institutional demand for confidential transactions

Bearish signals:

• No public gas cost data
• Unclear composability story
• Limited wallet support
• Centralized launch validators

What I need to see to deploy capital:

1. TVL transparency: Can I see protocol TVL even if individual positions are private?
2. Yield data: Can I calculate real APYs or is everything opaque?
3. Gas cost benchmarks: What’s the real cost of privacy transactions?
4. Composability proof: Can protocols interact or are they isolated?
5. Launch metrics: What’s Day 1 TVL, transaction volume, active users?

If Midnight can answer these questions with real data in March, I’ll start experimenting with capital allocation. If it’s all theoretical at launch, I’ll wait 6-12 months for the market to validate it first.

The Pragmatic Conclusion

Rachel asked whether “imperfect privacy that’s legally viable” is better than “perfect privacy that remains illegal.”

From a DeFi economics perspective, I’d say: Imperfect privacy that’s usable is better than perfect privacy that’s theoretical.

I don’t need perfect cryptographic privacy. I need:

• Privacy good enough to prevent front-running
• Privacy strong enough that competitors can’t see my positions
• Privacy compatible with regulatory requirements (so it doesn’t get shut down)

If Midnight delivers that with reasonable gas costs and decent composability, it’s a huge win.

But if it launches with perfect cryptography and unusable UX, expensive gas, and broken composability, it doesn’t matter how good the ZK proofs are.

Let’s see what the March launch actually delivers. I’m cautiously optimistic but waiting for real data before deploying capital.