At the end of September 2025, Google Cloud announced that it would begin operating critical infrastructure and at least one validator on Midnight, a new privacy sidechain linked to Cardano.
This is not a simple technical development. This means that tech giants will participate in ADA staking and stop the production of networks focused on processing and hiding sensitive data through zero-knowledge proofs. The technical value of the partnership is clear. Google provides resiliency, monitoring, and capabilities confidential computing This makes encrypted data easier to handle and verify without revealing sensitive information.
In regulated areas such as banking, healthcare, and digital identity, this could facilitate the development of private applications on blockchain with enterprise standards. But for the cryptocurrency enthusiast community, it marks the beginning of an urgent discussion about who controls privacy and governance in a cloud-dominated environment. But the pressing issues are political and structural. Are we facing a legitimate acceleration of privacy in “blockchain” or “sanctioned privacy” by large providers and institutional arrangements?
The heart of the conflict is not about cryptography, but about who gets to define the rules for access, auditing, and governance—the agreements between decentralized communities, companies, and regulators. Let’s take a closer look below.
Cardano, midnight and zero-knowledge proofs
In Cardano, security and block creation are staking– ADA holders can delegate their coins stake pool or manage directly. Validators operate the nodes that maintain the network and, once selected by the protocol, propose and sign blocks. The probability of being selected increases with the amount of ADA delegated, promoting efficiency. Although Cardano avoided the penalty (slash) To maintain stability, poorly performing operators earn less reward and lose trust from delegators.
midnight, la side chain Cardano’s privacy policy is designed to handle sensitive data without exposing it publicly. Its core technology is zero-knowledge proof (ZK proof) allows you to demonstrate that a condition is true without revealing information that supports the condition. For example, a company can demonstrate that it meets solvency requirements without showing the amount or identity. This will start the call selective privacy: The mathematical proof is published, not the original data.
Selective disclosure arises from this principle of defining what to disclose and under what conditions. Rather than exposing all information on a public blockchain, only the evidence needed to comply with contracts and regulations is visible. Sensitive data such as identity and KYC verification is hosted off-chain on institutional servers or trusted computing areas, from which evidence is generated for the network to verify. Blockchain holds verifiable verification, not personal data.
Midnight seeks to balance three tensions: privacy, anonymity, and regulatory compliance. The aim is to achieve verifiable confidentiality, allowing data protection and at the same time verification if required by law or contract. Thus, Cardano maintains decentralization, while Midnight adds a layer of auditable privacy, a middle ground between full transparency and institutional control.
What is Google really looking for in its partnership with Midnight?
Understanding the project’s architecture and technical operations raises the following questions: What does Google actually want with this connection in Cardano? Google Cloud joining Midnight as a validator operator serves multiple purposes, but the economics are perhaps the least decisive.
Regarding the above, staking rewards are not a decisive incentive for companies of that size. Performance exists, but it is small compared to the volume of business.
The real interest lies in providing services such as node hosting, confidential computing, key management, and support for project expansion, a model that turns technical collaboration into recurring revenue. For Google, the cloud and related services have value beyond direct profit.
On a strategic level, the partnership with Cardano strengthens Google’s position as a trusted infrastructure provider for institutions looking to deploy applications. “Blockchain” In line with company standards.
By combining security and decoupled computing capabilities with a privacy-focused network, Google sells not only its technical prowess, but also its trust that sensitive information will be processed under verifiable control without being publicly exposed. This message is appealing to banks, insurance companies, and public bodies that have historically been distrustful of decentralized technologies due to the lack of clear privacy and governance mechanisms.
Finally, Google Cloud is positioned as an infrastructure provider for Midnight/Cardano. Your confirmed role is technical: Working with, using validators. confidential computing Ensure operational security. In this way, we support institutional adoption by having a commercial interest in attracting projects and contracts, and by strategically participating in the development of privacy and ecosystem compliance standards.
Risks and impacts to the Cardano/Midnight ecosystem
As we have seen, Google’s presence can offer clear operational benefits, but it also poses important challenges that should be rigorously evaluated. for example:
- Dependency on cloud provider: Although Midnight is a decentralized network and does not directly rely on Google Cloud to operate, the extensive use of cloud providers by verifiers poses systemic risks. This means that technical or political failures can occur if too many nodes are concentrated in too few clouds.
- Operational centralization risks: Although Midnight maintains a decentralized structure, the involvement of a large company like Google creates the risk of de facto decentralization. The network may become more robust, but the diversity of users operating critical nodes will be reduced. If only companies have the resources to verify, the network becomes more trustworthy from a traditional perspective, at least in theory, but decentralization becomes company-based rather than community-based, which undermines the individual independence that characterizes open networks.
- vendor lock-in (or “supplier lock-in”) and normative influence: Commercial agreements with large providers can be conditional on technical or privacy governance decisions, favoring solutions that are more compatible with the provider’s infrastructure.
- Public awareness: Adoption by large corporations may increase trust in institutions, but it also promotes a narrative of corporate control of the technology that was born with ideals of decentralization.
Midnight’s future depends on the balance between community and enterprise. If the diversity and transparency of business operators is maintained, The partnership between Cardano and Google is Decentralized and trusted privacy platform. On the other hand, if infrastructure and decision-making are concentrated in the hands of a few providers; Networks are at risk of becoming privacy platforms controlled by large corporationswhich comes with all political and technical limitations.
Privacy for whom: users or private entities only?
The answer is complicated. While technology can ensure effective privacy to the outside world, its practices can also give institutions more power. Let me explain why.
The emergence of large cloud providers like Midnight that run the infrastructure and validators on privacy sidechains has changed the distribution of benefits. In reality, financial institutions are the main operational beneficiaries. This means you can leverage the combined network of ZK Proof and enterprise infrastructure to perform sensitive verifications and transactions without compromising trade secrets.
However, when companies like Google Cloud provide that infrastructure, institutions avoid deploying their own technical capabilities and reduce adoption friction. State agencies can also obtain verifiable evidence instead of large amounts of data, streamlining monitoring and auditing.
On the part of the public, if the repository is under the control of an institution on a company’s private servers, it provides some protection from public disclosure, although effective control over the public’s information remains limited. In short, technology benefits everyone, but the operational excellence of actors like Google tends to amplify the advantages of those already in control of their data.
So who is privacy for?
Technically, ZK proofs enable usable privacy for users, institutions, and authorities. This allows you to verify facts without exposing your data to a public network where anyone can see it. However, when critical infrastructure (validators, confidential computing, key management) runs in the corporate cloud, real privacy is primarily directed “outside.” That is, it protects you from public and competitive scrutiny, but it does not redistribute control of your data.
Google participates as operator and service provider confidential computing Enhances system reliability and scalability. However, it has a high concentration of technical dependencies (points of failure, audit paths, APIs, proprietary tools) that limit user and community autonomy.
On the surface, privacy benefits everyone. However, the presence of hyperscalers, or large cloud computing companies like Google and Amazon, tilts the operational balance toward institutions that contract for their services.
Who decides when information is made public?
This decision is articulated on three levels. First, the data owner or custodian approves the publication of the test. This permission may be based on citizen consent or through action by the entity that controls the off-chain files.
A smart contract on the sidechain (for example, Midnight on Cardano) then encodes the rules. Rules define which proofs are valid and verify ZK proofs without accessing the original data. Selective disclosure is practiced there. Third, legal authorities such as regulators or courts may require data to be handed over or new evidence to be produced.
In this plan, Google’s participation primarily affects the first two levels. Operate parts of the infrastructure where evidence is generated, transmitted, or verified (including sensitive computing enclaves). And it conditions integration between custodians and chains.
Although Google does not directly define what is disclosed, its operational role amplifies the practical influence of data controllers and facilitates the technical enforcement of policy.
What are the future scenarios? What is still hidden in the relationship between Google and Midnight?
Midnight’s future in Cardano unfolds between three plausible trajectories. In an enterprise scenario, the network becomes a large cloud and agency-managed platform for rapid deployment, compliance, and robust services. In a real-world decentralized scenario, the network maintains operator diversity, multiple test publishers, and strong community governance. That is, adoption will be slower, but sovereignty and resistance will be maintained.
And a third, hybrid path, combines corporate suppliers to scale with contractual and technical rules that enforce operational plurality.
Uncertainty continues to determine which path wins today. Key provisions of the agreements between Midnight/Cardano and players such as Google remain unknown to the public, including exclusivity, data rights, SLAs (service level agreements), and audit terms.
Although some of Midnight’s code is publicly available, there is no evidence of a thorough independent audit of the entire suite, especially c. There is no clear information about who can issue or revoke them. certificate And what kind of management is it under? Equally relevant is actual concentration. stake Geographical distribution of validators, factors that determine possible operational dependencies.
These gaps are not only technological, but also political and commercial decisions. Without contractual transparency, concentration limits, and external audits, the “Cardano mechanism” may end up promoting centralization under the guise of privacy.
Are we facing a privacy revolution or a new digital management model?
Privacy technologies based on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK proofs) and selective disclosure promise a revolution. It also demonstrates facts without revealing data, opening up possibilities for the integration of traditional finance and decentralized networks.
However, there are nuances to this promise. Encryption provides verifiable confidentiality and fine-grained control over information, but it actually operates within a company-controlled infrastructure. The privacy they provide does not necessarily equal sovereignty. Users choose what to display, but within technical and legal limits defined by the network’s administrator.
Midnight, Cardano’s privacy-focused sidechain, embodies that duality. Its goal is to provide “verifiable privacy” in a regulated environment where individuals and organizations can operate without exposing sensitive data.
However, incorporating actors such as Google Cloud as validators introduces the paradox of a decentralized architecture that relies on a centralized infrastructure. The power to verify transactions and participate in technology governance is concentrated in the hands of a few with strong technical and financial capabilities.
What is presented as a technological revolution may therefore lead to more sophisticated digital control models. Cryptographic certificates guarantee confidentiality to the public, but not necessarily to the institutions that manage the infrastructure. When nodes, certificates, and smart contracts remain under a corporate or regulatory domain, privacy ceases to be a sovereign right and becomes a granted privilege.
The challenge in the coming years will be to choose between two paths. A truly decentralized network with open auditing and decentralized power sources, or a business model that upholds the rhetoric of privacy while increasing the influence of large technological and financial intermediaries. First of all, a true revolution does not depend on norms, but on who governs it and whom it serves.
