Additional Context
Actors
Banks · Payment Networks · Corporate Treasury · Liquidity Providers · Regulators · Stablecoin Issuers
Problems
Problem 1: Trading Intent and Front-Running Prevention
FX markets are highly competitive with tight spreads. Leaked trading intent enables front-running and adverse price movements.
Requirements:
- Must hide: Order size, direction, timing, counterparty relationships
- Public OK: General market liquidity, executed trade existence (after settlement)
- Regulator access: Trade reporting for market surveillance; sanctions screening
Constraints:
- Real-time settlement requirements
- Liquidity fragmentation across stablecoin venues
- Regulatory reporting obligations (EMIR, Dodd-Frank)
Problem 2: Cross-Border Settlement Privacy
International payments reveal business relationships and transaction patterns that competitors can exploit.
Requirements:
- Must hide: Payment amounts, sender/receiver identities, payment purpose
- Public OK: Settlement finality confirmation
- Regulator access: AML/CFT monitoring; cross-border transaction reporting
Constraints:
- Multi-jurisdictional compliance requirements
- Correspondent banking relationships
- SWIFT alternative positioning
Recommended Approaches
Approach TBD. Consider:
- Privacy-preserving PvP (Payment vs Payment) settlement
- Integration with Private Bond Issuance & Trading DvP patterns for cash leg
- Stablecoin privacy patterns from Private Stablecoins for Institutional Payments
Open Questions
- How does privacy interact with real-time gross settlement requirements?
- What's the role of central bank digital currencies vs private stablecoins?
- How to handle multi-currency atomic swaps with privacy?
Notes And Links
- Related: Private Stablecoins for Institutional Payments (settlement currency privacy)
- Related: Private Payments (payment privacy patterns)
- Market context: Payment networks exploring Ethereum-based SWIFT alternatives
- Standards: ERC-7573 (atomic settlement), ISO 20022 (messaging)