2026-01-02 16:26:26

When it comes to cryptography engineering, the requirements for the team change. ZAMA's staffing is worth a look—about a hundred people, with more than a third holding PhDs in cryptography. This is not just a random headcount.

Why? Because cryptography software is completely different from ordinary development. Conventional code can be managed through iteration and testing, but cryptography is a hard science that relies heavily on mathematical foundations. If the team members don't have a deep understanding of this field, they can't even write good AI prompts, let alone build from scratch.

The Vibe coding approach? It simply doesn't work in cryptography. This also explains why teams working on fundamental cryptography infrastructure need to have qualifications and backgrounds that are above standard. ZAMA's technical approach seems to follow this logic.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ILCollector

· 12h ago

Damn, having 1/3 of the team with PhDs is really intense. It feels like the rapid iteration approach used by other teams just doesn't work in cryptography, given the mathematical complexity involved. --- Remember a project that was hyped up a lot before, but ended up with a bunch of security vulnerabilities—mainly because there weren’t many experts on the team. The ZAMA approach looks much more solid. --- Honestly, this is also why the progress of cryptography infrastructure always seems slow. It’s not that they’re slacking off; this stuff really can’t be fixed with a manpower blitz. --- But on the other hand, having a team of 100 with 1/3 PhDs isn’t a small cost for early-stage projects. How long can they sustain this? --- Wow, that Vibe coding approach really doesn’t work here. I used to think Prompt engineering could solve everything, haha.

View OriginalReply0

AlwaysMissingTops

· 12h ago

1/3 PhD? This configuration is indeed impressive, but it's understandable—cryptography isn't something you can achieve by shooting shit. --- So ultimately, it still comes down to investing human resources. In the short term, it definitely costs money, but this is the real moat. --- That vibe coding approach is really a dead end; cryptography has to be tough on math, there's no shortcut. --- It seems like that's the reason most projects can't succeed—they try to take shortcuts, but end up with numerous vulnerabilities. --- ZAMA's staffing looks expensive, but when spread over security costs, it's actually saving money. If an audit fails once, it could lead to bankruptcy. --- Having a bunch of PhDs is indeed an essential tactic; without experts in cryptography, nothing should be attempted.

View OriginalReply0

PebbleHander

· 12h ago

Alright, that's why a bunch of teams claiming to do crypto end up failing 1/3 PhDs' configurations are indeed impressive, but missing even one would cause a crash Cryptography can't surpass mathematics; that's the baseline The AI approach really can't save poor math skills, I've seen through it long ago ZAMA's method is correct, but it's expensive

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 12h ago

Wow, 1/3 PhD-level configuration, now that's truly professional. Not everyone can stack hardware like this. Cryptography really isn't something that can be handled just by debug and prompt engineers; it requires hardcore mathematicians. Vibe coding doesn't really apply here, and the ZAMA choice is a well-thought-out decision. Anyway, teams working on infrastructure must be configured like this, or they would have already failed.

View OriginalReply0