feat(approach): Privacy Standards Survey for institutional Ethereum #64
Conversation
oskarth
force-pushed
the
pr-012-standards-survey
branch
from
a07b10b to
5c6f941
Compare
The space-separated paths were treated as a single invalid string, causing Vale to fall back to linting all files including CHANGELOG.md.
Disable E-Prime and TooWordy (flags common technical terms). Set Passive to suggestion level instead of warning. Fix weasel word and marketing language flags in survey approach.
|
Ping @Meyanis95 |
| |----------|---------|--------|-------------------| | ||
| | **ERC-3643** | Permissioned tokenized securities | Final | High | | ||
| | **ERC-7573** | Cross-chain DvP coordination | Draft | High | | ||
| | **EIP-5564** | Stealth addresses | Draft | Medium | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a draft anymore; status Final
| | **ERC-7573** | Cross-chain DvP coordination | Draft | High | | ||
| | **EIP-5564** | Stealth addresses | Draft | Medium | | ||
| | **EIP-6123** | Derivatives lifecycle | Draft | High | | ||
| | **EIP-7805** | Fork Choice Inclusion Lists (FOCIL) | Draft | Medium | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
EIP-7805 will be the header for Glamsterdam hardfork -- should happen later this year;
|
|
||
| | Aspect | Details | | ||
| |--------|---------| | ||
| | **Purpose** | Standard for permissioned tokens with built-in compliance (KYC, transfer restrictions, eligibility rules) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should rephrase this;
The ERC itself doesn't provide rules; it facilitates compliance by enforcing rules on standard ERC-20 functions.
| | **Status** | Final | | ||
| | **Key Features** | On-chain identity (ONCHAINID), modular compliance rules, transfer agent controls, forced transfers for recovery | | ||
| | **Institutional Fit** | High - designed specifically for regulated securities | | ||
| | **Vendor Support** | [Tokeny](../vendors/tokeny.md), multiple custodians | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Vendor card doesn't exist
| | **Institutional Fit** | High - designed specifically for regulated securities | | ||
| | **Vendor Support** | [Tokeny](../vendors/tokeny.md), multiple custodians | | ||
| | **Pattern Support** | [ERC-3643 RWA Tokenization](../patterns/pattern-erc3643-rwa.md) | | ||
| | **Limitations** | Privacy limited to access control (not cryptographic); all transactions visible to permissioned parties | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
interop with other smart contracts e.g., DeFi protocols.
Needs dedicated protocol deployment like: https://aave.com/docs/aave-v3/horizon
| | Aspect | Details | | ||
| |--------|---------| | ||
| | **Purpose** | Enable unlinkable payments by generating fresh addresses per transaction | | ||
| | **Status** | Draft | |
| | **Purpose** | Censorship resistance through inclusion lists that proposers must respect | | ||
| | **Status** | Draft | | ||
| | **Key Features** | Committee-based inclusion lists, forced transaction inclusion, censorship detection | | ||
| | **Institutional Fit** | Medium - addresses censorship concerns for compliant transactions | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A higher impact for banking risk assessment. Give them higher confidence in maintaining the state of their contract, for example;
|
This is good! |
Summary
approaches/approach-privacy-standards-survey.md(~250 lines) documenting 7 core Ethereum standards for institutional privacyStandards Covered
PRD Reference
Implements PR-012 from PRD-IPTF-PUBLIC-Q1-2026.md
Test Plan