Identity Infrastructure
Every regulated financial primitive eventually needs to know something about its counterparty. The question is how little it can get away with knowing.
The problem
Permissionless markets and regulated instruments are not obviously compatible. Tokenized equities carry eligibility constraints. Institutional counterparties carry reporting obligations. The usual resolution is a whitelist maintained by whoever issued the asset, which recreates the intermediary the design was meant to remove and leaks the participant list to anyone reading the chain.
Selective disclosure
Our approach separates the credential from the assertion. An issuer attests to a fact about a participant; the participant proves the specific predicate a protocol needs — this address is eligible to hold this instrument — without revealing the underlying credential or linking their activity across venues.
The protocol learns exactly one bit. That is usually all it needed.
Portability
A credential earned once should not have to be earned again at every venue. Credentials here are held by the participant and presented to protocols, rather than held by protocols and looked up. The practical effect is that eligibility becomes a property of the participant rather than a moat belonging to whichever venue onboarded them first.
Reputation
Above eligibility sits a thinner layer: verifiable history. Repayment record, liquidation history, mandate performance. This is what lets undercollateralised positions exist at all, and it is deliberately narrow — we are attesting to observable onchain behaviour, not scoring people.