According to Woofun AI, in an interview with Maxime Desalle on October 20, the Winklevoss brothers, co-founder of Gemini (GEMI.US), once again clearly expressed their long-term optimism about the privacy cryptocurrency Zcash (ZEC) and proposed a new valuation logic based on the scarcity of privacy in the age of artificial intelligence. Cameron Winklevoss pointed out that if the market gives Zcash a market weight equivalent to 10% of Bitcoin's market capitalization, its price is expected to surpass $5,000, and possibly even reach $10,000 in the long run.
This judgment transcends traditional half-cycle narratives, regards financial privacy as a core asset against AI data analysis capabilities, and marks a profound shift in the crypto investment framework from simple monetary scarcity to the sovereign value of privacy. The two not only expressed their opinions through rhetoric, but also laid out ZEC mining and infrastructure through Cypherpunk Technologies entities in an attempt to seize structural opportunities in the AI-induced privacy crisis.
This strategy, which deeply binds technological philosophy, macroeconomic narratives, and specific commercial interests, reveals potential revaluation paths for private assets in decentralized financial systems.
Back in 2012, when the Winklevoss brothers first ventured into Bitcoin, their core investment logic was based on the analogy of “digital gold.” Cameron recalls that at the time, they thoroughly compared the differences between Bitcoin and gold in terms of supply, portability, and separability, and found that Bitcoin has significant advantages in many dimensions. Although gold is regarded as a scarce asset, its supply is not absolutely fixed, and new gold discoveries and mining activities are always ongoing, leading to uncertainty about its total quantity. In contrast, Bitcoin's total supply is strictly limited to 21 million units through a protocol code, and this limit cannot be changed no matter how the market demand surges in the future.
Furthermore, Bitcoin is far superior to gold in terms of physical transportation and segmentation. Cameron once quoted the plot in the movie “Die Hard” as an analogy: even if someone successfully robs an organization that stores a large amount of gold, they still need to use a truck to physically transport it, and Bitcoin has no such physical transfer barriers at all.
However, as their understanding of Bitcoin deepened, the two gradually realized that it had major flaws in its privacy properties, and was not even as good as traditional gold. Cameron pointed out that when holding gold bars, it is difficult for the outside world to know the specific asset status of the holder; however, all Bitcoin transaction records are stored on a public blockchain, and anyone can check and conduct in-depth audits. Bitcoin is actually a very inappropriate place to engage in illegal activities because all transactions can be audited and permanently recorded.” Cameron emphasized. Tyler further pointed out that the significance of Bitcoin is not only to create a scarce asset, but also because it is the first currency actually designed for the Internet. It is both a set of agreements and an asset running on top of an agreement, without relying on traditional bank payment networks such as wire transfers or ACH automated clearing houses.” We realized at the time that this was the internet of money. Money itself is the greatest social network ever.” Tyler said. But if Bitcoin aims to be the native currency of the Internet, should it have the privacy properties unique to physical cash?
This question became a key motivator for the pair to switch to Zcash later.
In 2016, the Winklevoss brothers participated in Zcash's seed funding round, and their core judgment is not fundamentally different from today's: financial privacy is critical, and Bitcoin is even inferior to traditional financial systems in this regard. Cameron analyzed that in ordinary bank transfers, although both parties to the transaction and related banks can obtain information, the public cannot directly check the flow of funds; when using physical cash, the parties to the transaction do not need to disclose payment amounts and records to the outside world. By contrast, Bitcoin's transaction data is open to everyone.
Cameron believes that if zero knowledge proves that the technology was mature enough when Bitcoin was born, Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to include it in the original protocol. Zero-knowledge proof allows one party to prove the truth of a statement to another party without disclosing the underlying information. Zcash uses this cryptographic technology to provide users with shielded transactions (shielded transactions) that hide information such as transaction addresses and amounts. Cameron pointed out that although Bitcoin's white paper describes it as “electronic cash,” it does not fully have the characteristics of traditional cash due to open and transparent transactions.
Zcash is trying to resolve this contradiction. Tyler raised the difference between the two to the level of a monetary system, believing that Bitcoin has separated money from the country and broken the government's absolute monopoly on money. But if the government can still observe and analyze all transactions, this separation will not be complete.” Privacy is a border that defines where national power ends and where individual freedom and individual sovereignty begin.” Cameron summed up this evolution into three stages: traditional cash protects privacy but relies on centralized issuance; Bitcoin creates decentralized money but transactions are open; and Zcash is trying to achieve both decentralization and financial privacy.
This logical chain clearly outlines the Wen Brothers' deep understanding of the evolution of monetary sovereignty, and also lays the theoretical foundation for future long-term bets on Zcash.
If financial privacy was the reason the Winklevoss brothers initially invested in Zcash, the explosive development of artificial intelligence (AI) has further strengthened this judgment. Tyler believes that advances in AI have made the privacy issues of public blockchains particularly prominent. Although Bitcoin addresses usually do not directly include the user's real name, on-chain transaction records are publicly disclosed for a long time. When this data is combined with exchange identity information, network activity, and other public data, analysts can infer relationships between specific addresses and even identify the actual controllers behind some addresses. AI can greatly improve the efficiency and scale of such analysis, transforming the transparency of blockchain from a technical characteristic to an important variable affecting personal asset security and financial privacy.
Based on this, Cameron made the core judgment: “If you're optimistic about AI, you have to be optimistic about Zcash, even if you don't realize it yourself.” He explained that if AI analysis capabilities continue to improve, public financial data will be easier to identify, correlate, and use, thereby boosting the market value of protecting sensitive information technology. Tyler called Zcash “the other side of the AI coin,” pointing out that the more AI evolves parabolic and explosive growth, the scarcer privacy becomes as an asset. In their view, Zcash is not only a private payment tool, but also an asset for investors to hedge against financial privacy risks brought about by AI.
This logic differs from traditional AI investments, which often gain exposure to growth through chips, cloud computing, data centers, and software companies. The Wen Brothers suggested that the development of AI may generate new negative externalities, such as increased information disclosure and monitoring capabilities, and privacy technology is in demand as a result.
Notably, this is still an investment assumption rather than a proven market relationship. Increased AI capabilities will not necessarily lead to an increase in the price of Zcash. Whether the demand for privacy translates into the continued use and holding of ZEC still depends on product experience, liquidity, regulatory environment, and competition for other privacy solutions.
This dialectical perspective reflects their clear understanding of market complexity and avoids simple linear extrapolation.
In addition to AI, the Winklevoss brothers also see quantum computing as a potential catalytic factor. Tyler pointed out that some of the elliptic curve cryptography mechanisms used by Bitcoin may face the challenges posed by sufficiently powerful quantum computers running the Shor algorithm in the future. He believes that Zcash's transaction blocking mechanism can reduce the exposure of sensitive information to a certain extent, thereby providing additional protection. What needs to be distinguished, however, is that the ability to protect privacy is not the same as complete anti-quantum security. Some of Zcash's current cryptographic components still rely on mathematical assumptions that may be threatened by the Shor algorithm. Its co-founder, Zooko Wilcox, previously made it clear that the current Zcash cannot be directly described as a quantum-resistant cryptocurrency. Therefore, the statement in the interview about Zcash's anti-quantum advantage is more appropriate to be understood as a discussion about specific privacy mechanisms rather than the fact that the entire protocol has been upgraded to be quantum-resistant.
This clarification is critical to avoid the market's overinterpretation of Zcash's technical capabilities. At the same time, it also reflects the rigor in technical judgment of the Wen Brothers. Instead of considering Zcash as a one-size-fits-all solution, they evaluate it in the broader context of technological evolution. Although the threat of quantum computing is remote, its potential impact cannot be ignored. This provides additional room for imagination for the long-term value of Zcash, while also reminding investors to focus on continued innovation in the field of cryptography.
The Winklevoss brothers further believe that the development of AI may change the Zcash market cycle. In the past, the Bitcoin market often discussed halving block rewards every four years, halving the issuance rate of new bitcoins, and investors judged the market cycle based on changes in supply, liquidity, and market demand. Zcash also uses fixed supply caps and a cyclical halving mechanism, but Cameron believes that its future market performance may not necessarily replicate Bitcoin. He reviewed the 2013 banking crisis in Cyprus, when some bank deposits faced write-down arrangements, making the public intuitively aware of the risks of the traditional banking system and helping Bitcoin get more attention.
Cameron believes that Zcash may also experience a similar turning point in perception in the future: an event suddenly materialized the importance of financial privacy, driving the public to re-understand the value of private money. But this turnaround may not necessarily occur near the halving cycle.” Compared to the four-year issuance cycle and the halving of block rewards, major breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence, and advances in AI models may become more important influencing factors.” Tyler also believes that it may be a mistake to directly apply Bitcoin's historical chart to predict Zcash. He pointed out that in the early development phase of Bitcoin from 2012 to 2014, there was no generative AI technology background like today, and there were no discussions on quantum computing at the same level.
Meanwhile, AI is driving a new round of infrastructure investment. Tyler mentioned in the interview that the cutting-edge AI lab plans to invest about $1 trillion to build data centers over the next few years. Cameron believes that this round of investment may become one of the largest waves of technological infrastructure construction in US history, even surpassing the expansion of early Internet optical networks and telecommunications infrastructure. In their view, if improvements in AI capabilities do continue to drive financial privacy requirements, investment in AI infrastructure may be an indirect catalyst for Zcash's long-term development.
This correlation does not mean that data center capital expenses will flow directly into Zcash, but rather that long-term improvements in AI capabilities may change the market's demand for privacy protection. Therefore, rather than simply focusing on halving time, the Wen Brothers are more concerned about whether breakthroughs in AI technology can continue to enhance the use value of privacy money.
This shift in perspective expanded Zcash's value anchor from a simple contraction of the money supply to a larger evolution of technological infrastructure.
In addition to discussing technology and market cycles, Cameron also provided a relatively straightforward Zcash valuation framework. In an interview, he said that according to estimates at the time, the market value of Zcash was about $25 billion, which is equivalent to about 2% of Bitcoin's market value. As a result, he asked the question: If financial privacy is a valuable monetary attribute, then how high should the market value it?” We love Bitcoin so much that I don't think it's going away. But I think the value of privacy is probably more than 2% of Bitcoin's market value.
“Cameron hypothesizes that if the relative market value of Zcash rises from 2% to 10% of Bitcoin, Zcash will theoretically gain about five times the room for growth under the condition that Bitcoin's market capitalization remains unchanged. Based on this assumption, he believes the price of ZEC could exceed $5,000 each, and there is even a possibility of moving towards $10,000. It should be emphasized that this is not a valuation model based on cash flow, profitability, or determining market demand, but rather a relative market capitalization scenario analysis.
The premise not only includes the market's willingness to increase the pricing of financial privacy, but also involves variables such as Bitcoin's future market value, ZEC circulating supply, and market capital allocation. Tyler explained from technical sources why they chose Bitcoin as a reference. He pointed out that Zcash originated from Bitcoin's code system and continued important designs such as fixed supply caps and halving mechanisms. It wasn't built from scratch; it stood on the shoulders of giants.” According to Tyler, Zcash can be understood as Bitcoin with added privacy protection features.
That doesn't mean Zcash will necessarily replace Bitcoin, though. Cameron believes that publicly verifiable transaction records are inherently valuable in some scenarios. For example, some institutions may want to allow external parties to directly verify their asset balances by disclosing their Bitcoin addresses.
At the same time, for many investors, holding an asset with a fixed supply and long-term store of value may be sufficient. However, in payment and everyday transaction scenarios, users may prefer to use assets with privacy features. Cameron envisions that in the future, users may hold Bitcoin as a store of value, exchange it for Zcash when they need to pay, and then exchange it back for Bitcoin as needed after completing the transaction.
This means that in the investment framework of the two, Bitcoin and Zcash are not completely alternative relationships, but may separately assume different functions such as transparent value storage and private payments. This perspective of complementary functions provides reasonable logical support for the coexistence of the two types of assets.
As for gold, the Winklevoss brothers also continued the comparative logic of investing in Bitcoin in the early days. They believe that although gold is relatively scarce on Earth, it does not necessarily have the same scarcity from the perspective of the entire universe. As space exploration and potential asteroid mining techniques develop, the long-term supply of gold is likely to change. In contrast, the 21 million Bitcoin and Zcash supply caps are set by the rules of the agreement.
However, the potential impact of space mining on the gold market is still a long-term speculation, and it cannot be judged from this that the current scarcity of gold has changed. This comparison once again highlights the superiority of crypto assets in terms of supply certainty. Woofun AI collated data showing that this code-based scarcity has unique anti-inflationary properties in decentralized financial systems. Through this series of comparisons, the Wen Brothers built a multi-level value evaluation system, placing Zcash in the coordinate systems of Bitcoin, gold, and even traditional financial systems, so as to more clearly position its unique value.
This multi-dimensional comparative analysis not only enhances the persuasive power of its investment logic, but also provides investors with a more comprehensive reference for decision-making. Instead of looking at Zcash in isolation, they saw it as an important link in the entire history of monetary evolution. This macroscopic view made their views deeper and broader.
The Winklevoss brothers' support for Zcash is not limited to publicly expressing investment opinions; they are also extending this investment logic to open capital markets through Cypherpunk Technologies. Cameron said Gemini launched Zcash back in 2018, and the two have supported its development ever since. However, some investors are unable to directly hold crypto assets due to account, compliance, or investment system restrictions. As a result, they want to provide more investors with exposure to Zcash through traditional capital market instruments such as stocks.
Cypherpunk Technologies is an important vehicle for this idea. It should be clarified that the company is not a company founded by two people from scratch the year before the interview in the traditional sense. According to public documents from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the listed company formerly known as Leap Therapeutics announced in November 2025 that it had changed its name to Cypherpunk Technologies (CYPH.US) and switched to a digital asset reserve strategy centered on Zcash after receiving financing led by Winklevoss Capital.
At the initial stage, the company focused on buying and holding ZEC. Since then, its business has gradually expanded to include mining and other privacy technology investments. In August 2026, Cypherpunk announced that it had obtained 4.2 GSol/s of Zcash mining power through a $33.3 million equity transaction related to Winklevoss Capital, accounting for about 18% of Zcash's network computing power according to the data at the time of the announcement.
This means that the company no longer only relies on holding ZEC to gain price exposure, but is also starting to directly participate in the infrastructure operation of the Zcash network. Tyler said that in the long run, Cypherpunk's goal is not to become a digital asset reserve company that simply holds ZEC. They want to further invest in and support technology that promotes financial privacy, individual sovereignty, and related liberties.” We started with Zcash and progressed to Zcash mining. But in reality, any privacy-protecting technology is within our scope of consideration.” This layout also explains why the pair's views on Zcash relate not only to the price of crypto assets, but also to the broader market for privacy technology.
However, there is a close link between Cypherpunk's financial performance and ZEC prices, mining economy, and capital market financing conditions, and it remains to be seen whether its business expansion will continue. This comprehensive layout, from speech to entity, shows the Wen Brothers' long-term commitment to the Zcash ecosystem and provides substantial endorsement of their investment views.
Although the two are optimistic about the development of privacy technology, they also acknowledge that regulation may be an important challenge facing this investment logic. When asked if the government is likely to impose restrictions on privacy technology in the same way that it has suppressed cryptocurrencies in the past, Cameron said: “The question is not whether this war will happen, but when it will happen.” Tyler believes that restrictions on privacy actually already exist in a more hidden way. Using the Flock camera surveillance system in the US as an example, he pointed out that it is easy for the public to confuse large-scale vehicle monitoring with traditional traffic violation filming.
In his view, traditional speeding cameras usually target specific traffic behaviors, and continuously operating vehicle recognition systems may collect large amounts of driving data without clearly breaking the law. As this information is further gathered into centralized databases and correlated analysis is performed using AI, individual activity trajectories may become easier to track. The two believe that this involves not only government surveillance authority, but also data security. Large amounts of personal information stored centrally can be a target for cyber attacks. For cryptography itself, Tyler borrowed the history of the Internet's evolution from HTTP to HTTPS.
He compared Bitcoin to HTTP and Zcash to HTTPS. In an unencrypted HTTP connection, sensitive information may be transmitted in clear text; HTTPS protects the content of the communication through an encryption mechanism. Tyler believes that the significance of Zcash for public blockchains is similar to what HTTPS meant for the early internet: increasing privacy protection while retaining basic functionality. He further pointed out that in the past, the government restricted the export of encryption technology and incorporated some encryption tools into military or strategic item management, but later gradually accepted the need for encryption technology in internet security.
Today, encrypted communications are an essential part of the modern internet. As a result, he believes privacy cryptocurrencies may go through a similar process: initially facing regulatory resistance, then gradually gaining wider acceptance. But this analogy doesn't mean that Zcash is bound to receive the same regulatory treatment as HTTPS. Encrypted communications and enhanced anonymity of financial transactions involve different regulatory goals, particularly anti-money laundering, sanctions enforcement, and transaction monitoring. Regarding the security value of financial privacy, Cameron also mentioned the “Wrench Attack” (Wrench Attack) in the cryptocurrency sector.
This term refers to attackers not trying to break cryptographic systems, but instead to force cryptographic asset holders to transfer assets or surrender private keys through personal threats, kidnapping, or violent coercion. Cameron believes that public on-chain asset balances may increase security risks for some holders, and privacy protections help reduce the exposure of sensitive financial information. In his judgment, the government may eventually realize that excessive disclosure of personal financial information is not necessarily more beneficial to the safety of citizens. However, there is still a high degree of uncertainty about whether and when this policy shift will occur. At the end of the interview, the Wen Brothers extended the discussion from financial privacy to freedom of thought. Faced with the common view that “I have nothing to hide, so I don't need privacy,” Cameron used Satoshi Nakamoto as an example to refute it. Why didn't Satoshi Nakamoto sign his real name on the Bitcoin white paper?” In his view, Satoshi Nakamoto's choice to remain anonymous may be related to the challenge Bitcoin poses to traditional financial power structures.
If Satoshi discloses his identity, he may face additional personal safety risks. Tyler further notes that the value of privacy is not only about whether an individual needs to hide certain information, but also whether it can provide room for new ideas to grow. Using Einstein as an example, he believes that his early years at the Bern Patent Office in Switzerland, rather than within the university system, reduced the restrictions imposed by academic rank and professional politics to a certain extent, making him have greater freedom of thought. The two believe that privacy can help researchers, intellectuals, and ordinary people reduce the risk of expressing non-mainstream opinions and reduce self-censorship. Even if one does not often exercise freedom of speech, one may still benefit from the free expression, research findings, and technological innovation of others.
Tyler also suggests that anonymity allows discussions to focus more on the idea itself rather than the person who proposed it. Take Satoshi Nakamoto as an example. Since the public doesn't know his true identity, the outside world is more inclined to discuss Bitcoin's source code, technical design, and economic mechanism rather than evaluate its views based on personal background.” You can only discuss the idea itself and debate its content, factual basis, and its own value.” In their view, privacy is not only a technical means of protecting financial transactions, but also a basic condition for maintaining individual autonomy and free exchange of ideas. Back to Zcash, this is one of the core reasons why the two have long supported privacy technology.
However, from a market perspective, financial privacy has social value, and it does not directly mean that a certain type of privacy asset can continue to appreciate in value. The long-term investment logic proposed by the Wen Brothers still needs to be verified through several specific variables: whether AI continues to improve the analyzability of public financial data; whether users are increasing the actual demand for blocked transactions as a result; whether Zcash can expand payment and holding scenarios under regulatory restrictions; and whether advances in privacy technology can eventually be reflected in the continued use of ZEC.
If these conditions gradually hold true, Zcash could form a new demand narrative distinct from Bitcoin's halving cycle. But if privacy requirements aren't translated into actual adoption, or if other technology solutions provide similar protection at a lower cost, then the rapid development of AI may not support Zcash's higher long-term valuation.
This conclusion not only shows the Wen Brothers' firm belief in the value of privacy, but also reflects their rational examination of market reality, providing investors with a comprehensive and profound framework for thought.