Under compelled process

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 court issues a production order for the same trader’s activity. Who can comply, and what do they hand over?

​

The compelled-process comparison

​

The point

Lit venues and OTC desks surrender everything the moment a court asks. Everything already sits as plaintext in their databases. That makes them legally compliant. It also lets an insider, a breach, or a rogue internal query expose a desk’s entire book. Dagon inverts the default. Nothing is plaintext in normal operation. The operator holds a map from session to ephemeral key. The credential issuer holds a map from credential to identity. Neither one alone can de-anonymize anyone. A court order, served on both, joins the maps and resolves one user’s activity. Everything else in the batch stays private.

​

The encrypted-mail analogy

Think encrypted mail. The provider can respond to a warrant without being able to leak you to anyone else. The warrant produces what the warrant asked for; nothing more, because the provider doesn’t have anything more to produce. Dagon’s two-party composition is the same property applied to a trading venue. A warrant resolves the named user. The rest of the batch, the rest of the venue’s activity, and every other user’s identity remain cryptographically unresolvable.

​

See also