#Monero vs #Zcash

Does the end justify the means, or are there rules that remain sacred?

When you understand the history and concepts, you can make better decisions.

Which side are you on?

Let's see...

There is a fundamental conflict, very topical, already raised philosophically some time ago, between deontology, where principles reign, and utilitarianism, where results prevail.

This is not just an academic question. Applied to the crypto field, it is the very distinction between sovereign money and compliant assets.

Deontology (Kant) represents the ethics of duty. Here, lines are drawn that cannot be crossed, regardless of the consequences. The morality is inherent in the action itself; it is about absolute integrity.

Utilitarianism, (Bentham/Mill) however, is the ethics of calculation. It seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, making everything negotiable if the final outcome "adds up." It is a form of pragmatism that easily becomes dangerous.

Monero ($XMR) stands as the embodiment of Deontology.

With mandatory privacy by default, it doesn't care about exchange delistings or regulatory appeasement. It treats privacy as a non-negotiable human right, doing what is inherently right rather than what is expedient.

Zcash ($ZEC), by contrast, is a utilitarian toaster.

By making privacy merely "opt-in," it sacrifices principle to maximize the "utility" of regulatory acceptance. It is not a tool for freedom; it is a docile device that adapts functionally, even when a certain degree of privacy must be sacrificed for the "good" of continuity. And so "useful privacy" is negotiable, and lines that should not be crossed are crossed.

Monero is dying with your boots on, and Zcash is a soldier who flees can fight another battle.