Again, no one deems something fungible or not, including governments or individual actors, value is subjective always.
Privacy is not equal to fungibility.
This isn't my opinion, this is objective fact.
Now more on why transparency is important, why privacy is on secondary layers instead of the base layer is critical (tied to transparency), early iterations of secondary privacy layers on bitcoin that allows for privacy in perpetuity.
And worth noting up top here that these secondary protocols will only continue to advance, because of the critical base layer properties.
Transparency, far from a liability, enables verifiable auditability, reinforcing trust, integrity and resilience - a feature absent in opaque systems like Monero.
Bitcoin’s transparent, auditable blockchain lets everyone see there’s nothing nefarious going on, like double-spending or attacks, and enables proactive countermeasures if something shady pops up.
The transparency ensures the system’s integrity (no hidden manipulation) and resilience (ability to withstand or respond to threats), which fosters trust among users.
For example, anyone can verify the blockchain to spot a 51% attack attempt or confirm transaction legitimacy, and miners or nodes can adjust to counter threats, like rejecting invalid blocks.
More layer twos will be built of course, maybe some will outdo lightning.
To state the obvious, like Nik Bhatia in layer money talks about money is built on layers. Gold takes too much energy, it's too costly - not possible to move fast hence paper money and wire transfers.
Critical aspects of a base layer being robust security, transparency, immutability, decentralization and proof of work; it's a feature to have privacy and near instant transactions on secondary layers.
Once you open a payment channel and commit funds, it can stay open indefinitely as long as both parties keep it active, no need to settle on the Bitcoin blockchain.
This lets you transact privately off-chain, potentially forever, creating a kind of self-contained, circular economy within the channel.
The base layer only gets involved if you close the channel or someone tries to cheat, triggering the on-chain settlement.
It’s a powerful setup for privacy and efficiency, as long as the channel stays funded and both sides cooperate.
Lightning channels do involve a degree of trust, but it’s minimal and technical rather than interpersonal.
Both parties need to trust that the other won’t try to cheat by broadcasting an old channel state, but this is deterred by the protocol’s penalty mechanisms-like the watchtower feature or timelocks that let honest parties reclaim funds if someone tries to close the channel maliciously.
But yeah, if someone unilaterally closes the channel, it settles on-chain, and that privacy layer shifts.
Trust in Lightning Network channels often ties to reputation and incentives, especially in practical scenarios.
If you're running a channel with a big player like a mastercard or visa equivalent (some entity with a strong track record) they're heavily incentivized to keep the channel open and act ethically to protect their brand and business.
Same goes for smaller, private setups; reputation and the promise of ongoing business creates a strong motive to avoid screwing over a partner by closing a channel maliciously.
Plus, legal recourse, adding another layer of deterrence. Even in off-grid or remote cases, mutual benefit and social trust can keep things stable. It's less about blind trust and more about reputation and track record and or aligned incentives backed by the protocol's safeguards.
Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain enables countermeasures by anyone seeking to support or protect the network, including those holding Bitcoin, ensuring robust, self-sustaining security through incentivized participation.
Transparency allows for awareness and protection, not only from within (people holding bitcoin) but from outsiders or newcomers who learn about Bitcoin when threats like a nation-state, corporate or central bank attack becomes known.
The transparent blockchain makes any nefarious action-like a 51% attack or regulatory overreach-obvious, which can spark action from people who aren’t yet in the ecosystem.
They might buy Bitcoin, run a node, or even push back politically, all because they see the threat, learn about it and want to protect or support the network’s integrity or the ideas and or the associated implications (private property rights, free speech, sound money etc).
This underscores Bitcoin’s strength: its openness turns potential vulnerabilities into a call to action, growing its resilience and adoption.
Tools such as CoinJoin, Lightning Network, and eCash, alongside platforms like Nostr, enhance practical fungibility by enabling private, uncensorable transactions without sacrificing the base layer's integrity.
External interventions, like government restrictions, may attempt to distort market behaviors, as seen historically with gold bans or cash tracking, but these do not undermine Bitcoin's intrinsic properties.
Rather, Bitcoin's decentralized, unalterable cap and nation-state-resistant design erode centralized control, defunding mechanisms of arbitrary regulation.
This ensures its sound money properties-scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand-sustain unmatched global adoption, outstripping alternatives prone to centralized risks.
