Fair enough, “0 privacy” was imprecise. Cryptographic unlinkability means an observer can’t prove the minter and redeemer are the same person.
But real-world adversaries don’t need proof, they work with probabilities. If one person mints zDAI and later one person redeems it, the theoretical possibility it changed hands via z-z transactions is not a credible defense. A court or chain analysis firm will draw the obvious conclusion.
There’s a reason we celebrate millions of ZEC in the shielded pool rather than saying “any two transactions provide privacy.” Privacy is a function of the crowd you hide in. “Non-zero” isn’t the bar, practical privacy requires adoption that may never materialize.