Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.inkwell.finance/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY © 2026 Inkwell Finance, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice, nor an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security or other financial instrument. Any examples, structures, or flows described here are design intent only and may change.A single desk sells $7M of BTC across three venues. Same size, same moment. Each venue charges differently on three fronts: slippage on the trade, information leaked during execution, and what a court can compel afterwards.
The trade
| Lit CEX · Binance spot | OTC desk · Dealer RFQ | Dagon · Confidential matching | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price impact | 25–50 bps | 5–15 bps | Batch midpoint |
| Pre-trade leakage | Order book broadcast. Size visible to every observer. | Dealer sees size, side, identity. Quote shopping leaks to N dealers. | Ciphertext to operator. Zero plaintext until clearing price emerges. |
| Counterparty visibility | Public order book. Execution reports on tape. | Single dealer. Sees you, your position, your history. | Shared encrypted vector. You are one curve among peers. |
| Front-running risk | High. Mempool and lit book together make a sandwich surface. | Dealer last-look. Quote pull on adverse information. | Uniform clearing price. Same fill for everyone in the batch. |
| Minimum size | None. | 1M depending on dealer. | Per-batch economics favor block-size flow. |
What the table is saying
Price impact. Lit venues show full size to the market, which moves price. OTC desks hide size from the public tape but reveal it to the dealer, who prices in adverse selection. Confidential matching clears all compatible flow at a single batch-midpoint price; size doesn’t move the clearing price because no one observing the search sees it. Pre-trade leakage. The distinction isn’t “hidden vs visible” — it’s “hidden from whom, for how long, and under what process.” A lit order book leaks to everyone, continuously. An OTC RFQ leaks to the dealer, and practically to whichever desks the dealer chats with. Confidential matching leaks nothing in plaintext to the operator, the matching engine, or any passive observer during the search. Counterparty visibility. On a lit CEX you’re a publicly-visible order. With an OTC desk you’re one client the desk underwrites individually. In a confidential match batch you’re one encrypted curve mixed with others; the engine cannot distinguish you from your peers without the credential issuer’s cooperation. Front-running risk. Mempool + lit-book makes a sandwich surface that search-based MEV exploits. Dealer desks have a human version — the last-look, where a dealer can pull a quote on adverse information. A batch-cleared confidential match structurally eliminates both: no one can see the mid before it emerges, and every participant in the batch prints at the same price. Minimum size. Not a constraint of the matching engine itself — rather a consequence of per-batch fixed costs. Small tickets are economically better-served on lit venues; block-size flow is where confidential matching’s leakage profile actually matters.See also
Under compelled process
Same three venues, now facing a production order. Who can comply,
and what do they hand over?
Selective disclosure
How Dagon’s two-party composition produces targeted disclosure
under compelled process without blanket data retention.