Selective disclosure (viewing keys + zero-knowledge proofs)
Provide on-demand, scoped visibility into confidential trades and positions via threshold-controlled viewing keys or zero-knowledge predicate proofs that answer specific regulator questions. The institution keeps plaintext private by default and releases only the minimum information required to satisfy a specific, logged mandate.
Provide on-demand, scoped visibility into confidential trades and positions via threshold-controlled viewing keys or zero-knowledge predicate proofs that answer specific regulator questions. The institution keeps plaintext private by default and releases only the minimum information required to satisfy a specific, logged mandate.
- Threshold key management that holds viewing-key shares across independent operators and releases material only under policy.
- Policy engine that checks each request against the active mandate (jurisdiction, scope, time window, requester identity) before assembling a response.
- Predicate circuit library that can answer common regulator questions ("total volume in ISIN X on date Y"; "no trades with sanctioned parties in quarter Q") without releasing raw data.
- Attestation log that records every access grant as a signed, hashed entry; a public registry can anchor these hashes for tamper-evidence without revealing content.
- Approval workflow used by the institution's compliance team to review and sign off on requests before the policy engine acts.
Guarantees:
- Least-privilege, revocable access: viewing keys are time-boxed; predicate proofs leak no raw data.
- Full audit trail: every grant is recorded, signed, and anchored.
- Predicate proofs can answer common compliance questions without exposing transaction content.
Threat model:
- Threshold key custody integrity. A coalition of operators above the threshold can forge responses or leak keys.
- Mandate parsing correctness. A bug in the policy engine can widen scope beyond what the mandate authorises.
- Attestation log availability. If the log is rewritable or unobserved, disclosures can be retroactively denied.
- Predicate circuit soundness and input binding. A misbound predicate may answer a different question than the one logged.
- Side channels in custody infrastructure are out of scope for this pattern.
- Operational complexity: threshold key custody, rotation, and incident response need dedicated runbooks.
- Predicate authoring requires discipline: circuits must mirror mandate semantics exactly, and changes need auditable version control.
- Response latency increases with threshold reconstitution or proof generation time; batch workflows absorb this better than real-time supervisory queries.
- Regulator tooling maturity varies: some supervisory authorities still require raw data formats, limiting applicable use cases.
A supervisory authority asks for trades on a given date in a specific instrument. The policy engine matches the request against the institution's active mandate, an approval record is logged, and a 24-hour viewing key reconstituted from threshold shares is issued. The regulator reviews the trades during the window; at expiry the key is revoked automatically, and the attestation log retains a hashed record for future audit.