Mirror Tang, CEO of ZEROBASE.
In a digital era plagued by growing privacy concerns and eroding institutional trust, the power to prove something without disclosing sensitive data is not merely an academic exercise—it’s a fundamental shift in how we approach trust. Zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs aren’t asking users to blindly believe; they’re enabling them to independently verify.
As a technical founder deeply engaged in integrating ZK solutions into financial systems and building cryptographic systems, I’ve discovered firsthand that trust has transformed from a vague aspiration into a concrete engineering objective.
According to Mordor Intelligence, the global fintech market size reached $320.81 billion in 2025, with projections to grow to $652.8 billion by 2030. Yet, strikingly, most platforms still lack robust, built-in mechanisms for transparency and independent verification. This significant gap is precisely where zero-knowledge proofs become indispensable.
Lesson 1: Verifiability Is A Feature, Not A Bonus
In traditional finance, compliance, auditing and regulatory transparency are often treated as afterthoughts—features layered on once systems are already in place. However, ZK proof technology embeds verifiability directly into financial processes from the start. This fundamental shift redefines product design: Modern users no longer simply pursue yield; they demand clear evidence regarding the origin and safety of returns.
In my work at ZEROBASE, I observed a profound behavioral change: Users consistently preferred financial strategies validated by ZK proofs, which assured them of risk neutrality and responsible leverage. Remarkably, the presence of these proofs alone was enough to significantly enhance user confidence, even when the underlying cryptography was opaque to them.
Lesson 2: ZK Is Not Just For Privacy; It’s For Accountability
Zero-knowledge proofs are frequently misunderstood as mere privacy tools, cloaking information behind cryptographic walls. However, the real innovation of ZK proofs lies in their ability to actively demonstrate accountability and integrity.
For instance, in a practical deployment, I leveraged interval proofs to continually confirm that a fund’s leverage ratios never breached pre-established limits. This dynamic, automated and tamper-proof validation offered superior assurance compared to traditional static reporting methods.
Based on what I’ve seen in my work, ZK proofs can transform discourse from a subjective “trust me, bro” to an objective “verify it for yourself.”
Lesson 3: Technical Proofs Must Build Trust On Both Sides
A critical insight from my journey is that technical sophistication alone does not establish trust. Even mathematically rigorous proofs can fail if neither side of a transaction—supplier or consumer—can interpret what is being guaranteed. In early deployments at my company, I encountered confusion: Counterparties received proofs they couldn’t contextualize, leaving the trust gap unresolved.
I realized that true transparency is not just a technical achievement; it is a user-experience and market-relationship imperative. We invested heavily in designing an intuitive ZK report browser that translates complex cryptographic outputs into actionable insights for all participants: investors, clients and regulators alike.
The result wasn’t just “proof correctness,” but mutual assurance—a shared understanding that promises were being mathematically upheld without overexposing sensitive information. This is something business leaders should strive for in all ZK proof applications.
Getting Started With ZK Proofs
Having guided multiple financial institutions through their first ZK integrations, I’ve learned that adopting this technology is less about mathematics and more about engineering trustworthy privacy into financial relationships.
In every market interaction, supply-side actors (fund managers, custodians, etc.) and demand-side actors (investors, regulators, clients, etc.) both need verification without disclosure. ZK proofs create a trust channel that bridges this gap.
With all of this in mind, three best practices for embracing ZK proofs stand out to me:
1. Plan for dual expertise. ZK proofs sit at the intersection of cryptography, compliance and product experience. Build cross-functional teams early—cryptographers, UX specialists and risk officers—to ensure proofs are not only valid, but legible and regulator-ready.
2. Map trust gaps, not just data flows. Traditional systems exchange raw data, creating friction and privacy risks. ZK-enabled systems exchange verifiable guarantees instead. Identify where trust is weakest—unverified reserves, untested leverage limits, delayed risk reports, etc.—and design proofs to address these pain points first.
3. Start small, but make it verifiable. Don’t attempt to make everything ZK-verifiable on day one. Begin with a narrow, high-impact claim—continuous proof of solvency, leverage or collateral quality—that meaningfully enhances confidence between counterparties. Early wins prove the concept and pave the way for broader adoption.
By following these steps, organizations can move beyond compliance checkboxes toward a future where every market promise can be verified without sacrificing confidentiality, redefining how trust is engineered in digital finance.
Conclusion
Zero-knowledge proofs represent more than just an advancement in cryptography—they embody a powerful philosophy that could revolutionize trust in financial systems. By integrating verifiability, integrity and accountability directly into digital infrastructures, ZK proofs compel us to rethink conventional product and infrastructure development practices.
Rather than passively soliciting trust, we must proactively engineer it into every interaction. In this transformative paradigm, mathematics becomes our most reliable medium for establishing genuine trust.
Imagine a world where trust is a measurable, verifiable feature—not merely a marketing slogan. Are we ready to embrace it?
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?