Giacomo (@0xjei) on building privacy into execution
Giacomo has been navigating the landscape of programmable cryptography on Ethereum since 2018, working across zero-knowledge systems, threshold cryptography, and confidential computation. At the Interfold, his work focuses on the cryptographic machinery behind distributed execution: the systems that allow private inputs to produce shared, verifiable outcomes without giving a single operator control over the process. In this interview, he shares his journey, motivations, and the technical work shaping Interfold’s future.
- Name: Giacomo
- Role at the Interfold: Applied Cryptography Engineer
- Area of expertise: Applied Cryptography, Software Engineering, Ethereum Smart Contracts
- Links: @0xjei | site
Hi Giacomo! What’s your background, and what drew you to cryptography and confidential computation?
I hold a master’s degree in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics. After graduating, I was awarded a research fellowship that allowed me to work on Ethereum from an engineering perspective. I focused on smart contract development practices and co-authored research in that area, which gave me a strong foundation in both theoretical and applied aspects of blockchain systems.
Around the same time, a colleague in my research group, Cedoor, who later became both a teammate in PSE and now at Interfold, was working on his master’s thesis on private voting protocols. That work introduced me to zero-knowledge proofs in a very concrete way. It wasn’t just abstract mathematics anymore; it was about building systems where privacy and verifiability could coexist.
What really solidified my interest, though, was my involvement in activist spaces. While revisiting hacktivism and decentralized coordination tools, I discovered real-world experiments in censorship-resistant voting systems, such as those developed by the Catalan independence movement through projects like Vocdoni. Seeing cryptography used as a tool for democratic resilience was a turning point for me. It made the impact tangible.
From that moment, I became deeply committed to the intersection of privacy, cryptography, and Ethereum. A few years later, I joined Privacy Stewards Ethereum (PSE), where I had the chance to explore a wide range of protocols: zero-knowledge proofs, MPC, and fully homomorphic encryption. That period was very experimental for me. I tried building systems for collaborative confidential computation, although not all of them worked as intended at the time.
Eventually, I came across Interfold’s whitepaper. It described a system that aligned closely with ideas I had been exploring, but in a much more structured and complete way. Since I was already transitioning from PSE, joining the Interfold felt like a natural continuation of that journey.
What excites you most about working on Interfold?
What excites me most is that we are working on a problem that, quite frankly, hasn’t been properly solved anywhere else.
The Interfold gives me the space to design and build entirely new systems in confidential computation. It’s not just about incremental improvements, it’s about rethinking how computation can happen when data remains encrypted throughout its lifecycle. That opens up a huge design space.
There’s something very motivating about working on primitives that don’t yet have standardized answers. Every design decision matters. Every component has to be carefully reasoned about, because we are effectively stitching together zero-knowledge proofs, threshold cryptography, and fully homomorphic encryption into a single coherent system.
What I find especially compelling is the long-term vision: enabling computation on encrypted data without any single entity having unchecked control over it. That changes the trust model entirely. It’s a shift from “trust the operator” to “trust the mathematics.” Being part of a team that is actively building toward that is what keeps me engaged.
What technical problem are you currently focused on?
Right now, I’m working on Public Verifiable Secret Sharing, or PVSS.
At its core, PVSS is part of the broader challenge of threshold cryptography. The idea is that instead of having a single entity hold a secret key, we distribute that key across multiple participants, what we call ciphernodes, so that no individual party can reconstruct it alone.
The hard part is not just splitting the key. The real challenge is ensuring that the process of distributing it is itself trustworthy. Without verification, a malicious participant could distribute incorrect shares, or a centralized coordinator could bias the system while still appearing correct externally.
PVSS solves this by introducing public verifiability through zero-knowledge proofs. Every step in the process can be checked by anyone, without revealing the underlying secret. That means the system becomes auditable by design.
In the context of Interfold, PVSS is used as part of distributed key generation for threshold BFV encryption. The idea is that the system collectively generates a public key that anyone can use for encryption, while the corresponding private key is never held by any single entity. Instead, it is distributed in shares, and only reconstructed collaboratively when needed.
What makes this interesting is how many cryptographic layers come together. You have threshold cryptography ensuring distribution, zero-knowledge proofs ensuring correctness, and homomorphic encryption enabling computation on top of encrypted data. PVSS is one of the foundational pieces that makes all of this possible.
How do you see confidential computing evolving over the next five years?
I think confidential computing will initially grow in relatively small, focused environments. Early adoption will likely come from communities or jurisdictions that have a strong need for privacy-preserving systems - things like private governance tools, secure data collaboration, or censorship-resistant infrastructure.
In the next couple of years, I expect to see more real-world pilots: private voting systems, healthcare data analysis where privacy is critical, and niche applications where traditional infrastructure is too transparent or too centralized.
As these systems mature, the next phase will be about standardization. Once the primitives become stable and reusable, they can be composed into higher-level systems. That’s when we’ll start seeing adoption from larger organizations and possibly even municipalities, especially where regulatory compliance intersects with privacy requirements.
At the same time, I don’t think this will be a smooth or universally accepted transition. Systems that reduce centralized control often face resistance from existing power structures. So I see this as a gradual, uneven adoption curve rather than a sudden shift. But over time, as the technology proves itself, the benefits of privacy-preserving computation will become harder to ignore.
What advice would you give to developers or researchers entering privacy-preserving technologies?
My main advice is to start from fundamentals and resist the urge to jump directly into high-level abstractions.
A lot of the core ideas we use today: zero-knowledge proofs, multiparty computation, threshold cryptography - were developed decades ago. Reading those original papers is still incredibly valuable because they expose the assumptions and limitations that modern systems build on.
I also strongly encourage people to implement things from scratch. Even if the implementations are inefficient or imperfect, the process of building the core algorithms yourself forces you to understand the mechanics deeply. It’s very different from using a library.
Another important aspect is working with others. Hackathons, research groups, and technical communities are invaluable. Cryptography can feel abstract when studied alone, but becomes much clearer when you are actively discussing trade-offs and edge cases with others.
Finally, I would say be selective with information. There is a lot of noise in this space. Focus on well-established research and foundational work rather than chasing every new trend or blog post.
Is there anything you think more people should understand about privacy or “hackers”?
Yes, there are two ideas I think are often misunderstood.
The first is privacy-by-default. I don’t see privacy as something that hides wrongdoing. I see it as a baseline design principle that protects normal human behavior. People should be able to communicate with doctors, journalists, or collaborators without exposing everything to public infrastructure by default. Privacy is what allows safe participation in an open society. It doesn’t conflict with transparency where transparency is actually needed.
The second is the word “hacker.” I think it has been distorted over time. At its core, a hacker is someone who explores systems deeply, understands how they work, and pushes their boundaries. That curiosity is often what leads to stronger, more secure systems. While some people misuse those skills, the majority of hackers are builders and explorers, not malicious actors.