At first I assumed privacy meant the user had to keep every part of the transaction process private and local. But the more I looked at Phoenix, the less that seemed to be the actual boundary. What caught my attention was the delegation model. A user can hand the network-scanning work to a third party through a view key, and even delegate ZK proof generation, while keeping the full secret needed to spend the note. That is a fairly specific separation of responsibilities. The outside party can do expensive work, but is deliberately denied the final authority over the asset. It also means privacy here is not simply about hiding data. It depends on deciding which pieces of knowledge are safe to outsource and which piece must never leave the owner. That feels closer to how financial systems already work: computation can be delegated, but control still has to remain somewhere clearly defined. Makes me wonder whether the harder privacy problem is actually deciding where that trust boundary should sit? #Dusk $DUSK @Dusk