> ## 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.

# Under compelled process

> A court issues a production order on the same trade. What each venue type can comply with — and how two-party composition changes the answer.

> **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

|                                         | Lit CEX · Binance spot                     | OTC desk · Dealer RFQ                                       | Dagon · Confidential matching                                                                      |
| --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Parties compelled**                   | Exchange compliance desk. One party.       | Dealer compliance desk. One party.                          | Operator AND credential issuer. Two independent parties.                                           |
| **What is produced**                    | Full KYC packet + trade blotter + IP logs. | Client file, quote history, trade ticket, chat transcripts. | Session ↔ ephemeral-key mapping (operator) + credential ↔ PII (issuer). Joined: one specific user. |
| **If one party refuses or is breached** | Everything is already produced.            | Everything is already produced.                             | Identity remains unresolvable. The two-party composition is load-bearing.                          |
| **Real-time surveillance**              | Yes. The exchange sees you.                | Yes. The dealer sees you.                                   | No. Operator sees ciphertext. Compelled process is post-facto, not live.                           |

## The point

<Info>
  **Privacy is math. Compliance is process.**
</Info>

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

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Two-party composition" icon="handshake" href="/dagon/concepts/two-party-composition">
    How the operator and credential issuer split identity between
    them — and why neither alone can name a trader.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Selective disclosure" icon="key" href="/dagon/concepts/selective-disclosure">
    The cryptographic mechanism that lets Dagon comply with targeted
    production orders without blanket data retention.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>