Back to collectionPosition privacy and network revenue are not evidence of the same property
A short private-perpetuals claim and a Polygon revenue report require separate readings: one concerns visibility, the other a reported financial metric.
Midnight shared a September 4 post from wallstreetbets saying that perpetual positions no longer had to be public. The original author's short statement is the evidence available here; it is not a technical disclosure authored by Midnight. It identifies a claimed visibility change, but does not describe the covered venue, disclosure conditions or the mechanism that would keep a position private.
Polygon's separate shared post points to Cointelegraph's September 2 report of more than $1.3 million in network revenue over the preceding 30 days. That figure is attributed reporting, not an independently reconciled income statement. More importantly, it concerns a different property of a different system. Revenue cannot establish that a trader's identity, collateral, position or settlement path remains confidential.
A position-privacy claim becomes useful only when the observer and the protected information are specified. Hiding size from the public is different from hiding it from an operator, a counterparty or an authorized reviewer. Entry and exit transfers may expose information even when an open position is not publicly displayed. The short post does not resolve those boundaries, so an end-to-end anonymity claim would go beyond its content.
Risk management introduces another boundary. A trading system must still determine when obligations cannot be met and how a position can be closed. Whether a privacy design permits the necessary checks without unnecessary disclosure is a substantive design question. No liquidation process, collateral verification or failure-handling description appears in the shared statement; those omissions cannot be filled with a generic assertion that privacy makes the whole product safer.
The revenue report has its own unanswered accounting questions. A trailing total needs a consistent definition and period, and receipts are not necessarily profit or distributions to token holders. Evaluating its durability would require context about the activity generating it and the costs or incentives associated with that activity. None of those amounts can be inferred simply by placing the reported total next to a privacy claim.
Future technical documentation could make the private-position proposition testable, while consistent financial reporting could make the network revenue series comparable. These are separate routes to better evidence. Until those details are available, the defensible reading is narrow: one author described a privacy feature, and another reported a revenue figure, with no demonstrated causal or operational connection between them.