# Marcus Leung, Senior Security Engineer at Drata — read of cypherpunk-library, June 10 2026

> 9 years in InfoSec, recently obsessed with whether I can turn a side project into something that doesn't require me to commute to San Jose anymore. Two kids, 6 and 9. I read on the train.

## How I got here

Someone in a Signal group I'm in for security folks dropped a link with the comment "this is either exactly right or totally wrong and I can't tell." That's the kind of comment that makes me click. I searched the URL before clicking it out of habit. Landed here cold, no context.

## What I clicked first

The name pulled me in immediately. "Cypherpunk Library" is a real thing in my world. Szabo, Back, the Tor whitepaper -- I've spent years hunting this stuff across random university mirror sites and dead Wayback links. So the concept resonated before I read a word of copy.

Then I read "Vetted Books and Papers. Hand-curated collection on cryptography, privacy protocols, and decentralized systems from foundational texts to cutting-edge research." That's fine. Generic but fine. I kept going.

## Where I paused

The score box. "64/100 Adoptability. -$5,010 Year-1 take-home (Fermi). 1 in 6 Meaningful-success odds."

I stopped here for a solid minute. Is this page trying to sell me a product, or is it trying to sell me the idea of building the product myself? Because those are completely different asks and the page is doing both at the same time without announcing the switch. I had to re-read twice to understand that Wishdeal Studio is not the cypherpunk library. They built the strategy for one. They want to sell that strategy to me.

That is not obvious from the hero. The hero reads like a product launch. The score box reads like a pitch deck. The pricing tier reads like a SaaS. I felt genuinely disoriented.

## What I distrusted

"Financial upside: 1/10." They scored their own idea a 1 out of 10 on financial upside and are still selling it. I get the honesty angle. I actually respect the impulse. But the way it's displayed, sitting next to credibility 9/10 and buyer clarity 10/10, makes it feel like they're burying the lede with transparency theater. "We told you it would lose money" is not the same as "here is why that is okay and what the real upside actually is."

Also "The dossier maps a realistic path; whether it works is up to you, your taste, and your distribution." That line is doing a lot of liability work dressed up as humility.

And the negative Year-1 estimate is just sitting there with no explanation of what assumptions drive it. Is -$5,010 because CAC is high? Because pricing is low? Because the addressable market is tiny? I don't know, and the page doesn't say.

## What would convince me

I want to know if anyone in the privacy or crypto community has actually been asking for something like this in a way that's documented. Not "here's why the ICP would want it." Show me a Reddit thread with 200 upvotes of people complaining that they can't find a good reading list on ZK proofs. Show me a Twitter search result. Show me a Discord server with 1,200 people doing this manually right now.

That, plus a real answer to whether the -$5,010 is a 12-month loss-leader that turns into something, or just chronic negative margin. Those are different situations.

## What I'd ask in an email reply

1. The page says "direct author access" as a feature. Which authors have already agreed to participate, or is that a future-state assumption baked into the model?
2. The -$5K Year-1 number -- is that before or after the $99-199 I pay you to buy the starter? And what's the assumed pricing model for the library itself, because I don't see one on the page.
3. Has anyone from the cypherpunk or privacy community (not just a potential operator) actually reviewed this concept and said it fills a gap, or is the community validation baked into the ICP slide?

## Verdict: on-the-fence

The concept is real and I'd actually use a product like this if it existed well. But I'm not sure the page is asking me to use it -- it's asking me to build it, and the honest score on financial upside being 1/10 with negative Year-1 returns is a hard number to get past without more context on why it's still worth doing.

---
*Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-06-10. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*