2026-01-12 22:24:41

A project has put a lot of effort into the L1 layer. Their self-developed Piecrust virtual machine follows a ZK-friendly technical route, focusing on the combination of privacy and performance — running smart contracts on the blockchain that are both fast and private. This is indeed attractive to institutions looking to enter the space.

Honestly, building a privacy-first L1 from scratch is technically challenging. But looking at their technology stack design, from the underlying virtual machine to the upper-layer applications, the approach is quite clear. This is not just for the hype this year, but to prepare for long-term ecosystem development. Privacy computing, high-efficiency execution, and compatibility with institutional finance — whether these three can truly be integrated remains to be seen based on the actual deployment results.

View Original

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketSurvivor

· 01-15 08:00

It seems like they are serious about doing things, but the privacy L1 path really needs to be successfully implemented to count. Piecrust's reliability depends on whether there is real business volume after the mainnet launches. Both privacy and performance sound great, but how will it perform in practice? The technical approach is good, but I worry it's just theoretical; we'll see after deployment. ZK friendliness is indeed a direction, but many are already competing in this space. Institutions find it novel, but will it face the cold start dilemma when actually used? Wanting all three goals at once often results in none being done well; I've seen many projects like this.

View OriginalReply0

SilentObserver

· 01-15 02:09

Privacy + performance is indeed an attractive combination, but whether the Piecrust system can truly be implemented remains a question; it depends on how well the mainnet performs.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-14 21:49

Honestly, the approach of Piecrust seems quite solid to me, not a project that just blows its own horn for funding. ZK is indeed difficult, but integrating privacy and performance? If they can really pull it off, institutions will be lining up. That said, no matter how beautiful the design on paper is, it all depends on how the mainnet performs. Piecrust is good, not just hyping concepts. The combination of privacy and performance sounds promising.

View OriginalReply0

SandwichVictim

· 01-12 22:46

It's quite loud, but whether Piecrust can stay stable when it really runs is still a question... The ZK path isn't that easy to walk.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 01-12 22:42

Privacy + performance is a good combination, but how many can actually implement it? Piecrust looks very clear, but I'm worried that in the end, it's just another old routine where PPT is better than the code.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 01-12 22:41

Piecrust really seems to have put in effort. The ZK-friendly approach is not just a gimmick; actually achieving the combination of privacy and high performance is not that easy.

View OriginalReply0

RugpullTherapist

· 01-12 22:36

A combination of privacy + performance sounds quite appealing, but the real key is whether Piecrust can actually be implemented successfully without issues.

View OriginalReply0

LootboxPhobia

· 01-12 22:36

Piecrust sounds good, but I still have some doubts about whether it can really run. Privacy plus performance in one package sounds tough; ZK is friendly but not a silver bullet. Institutions, don't rush to get involved. Let's wait until they deploy their solutions.

View OriginalReply0

Rugpull幸存者

· 01-12 22:32

Looking at Piecrust, this set of tools, it’s indeed somewhat interesting, but I still want to wait and see. Is the Piecrust virtual machine really stable? It feels like the ZK path is not without pitfalls. The combination of privacy + performance sounds tempting, but I’m worried it might just be on paper. Let’s wait and see the deployment results. I’m used to these foundational projects being hyped up. A clear technical roadmap doesn’t necessarily mean it can actually run; many projects have failed. The three-in-one integration? Let’s prove it can run stably first, don’t want another PPT coin.

View OriginalReply0