Skip to content

feat: split patterns to approaches#2

Merged
oskarth merged 6 commits intomasterfrom
feat/split
Oct 7, 2025
Merged

feat: split patterns to approaches#2
oskarth merged 6 commits intomasterfrom
feat/split

Conversation

@Meyanis95
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Added detailed, production-ready approaches following a consistent structure:

  • approach-private-auth.md - ZK-based identity verification using Merkle tree membership proofs
  • approach-private-derivatives.md - ERC-6123 derivatives with confidential margin & settlement using ZK shielded balances
  • approach-private-dvp.md - Delivery-vs-payment with privacy L2 integration and ERC-7573 coordination
  • approach-private-l2-stablecoins.md - Native stablecoin infrastructure on private L2s
  • approach-shielded-stablecoins.md - L1 shielded pools for high-value institutional stablecoin transfers

Enhanced Patterns (4 new, 3 refactored)
New Core Patterns:

  • pattern-co-snark.md - Multi-party ZK proofs for private compliance verification
  • pattern-privacy-l2s.md - Privacy-native rollups (ZK/FHE) for confidential execution
  • pattern-private-vaults.md - Intent-based portfolio management with encrypted strategies
  • pattern-shielding.md - Foundational ERC-20 shielding with selective disclosure

Refactored/Consolidated:

  • Split redundant/outdated patterns to emphasize with approaches

New Vendor Profiles

  • orion-finance.md - Private portfolio management with FHE encryption
  • zama.md - FHE SDK for confidential smart contracts

@Meyanis95 Meyanis95 requested review from mojalil, namnc and oskarth October 6, 2025 15:09
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
# Approach: Private Delivery-versus-Payment (DvP)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think for this one we said private-dvp is not a use case, but something that touches multiple use cases. Do you think it still makes sense as an approach?


### Recommended Architecture: Privacy L2 + Atomic Settlement

**Primary Pattern:** [ERC-7573 DvP](../patterns/pattern-dvp-erc7573.md)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this enough? Do we not need to make this ERC privacy-preserving?

- EAS attestation logging for audit trails
- Time-bounded viewing keys for regulatory access

### Vendor Recommendations
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How prescriptive do we want to be at this stage?

Don't think below is bad, just wondering how prescriptive we want to be here at this stage

Also considering trade-offs

E.g. Aztec not live yet, ACE seems a bit diff from atomic settlement, Circle needs to work on L2 etc


### Open Questions

1. **Stablecoin Issuer Adoption:** Timeline for major issuers (Circle, Tether) to support privacy L2s natively?
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see some of above Qs answered

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@oskarth oskarth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great! Some minor comments but think we can merge this; definitely better than what we have right now

@oskarth
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

oskarth commented Oct 7, 2025

I'll go ahead and merge it; can address above in follow up PRs

@oskarth oskarth merged commit 3d8a9cd into master Oct 7, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants