Resolving the Dichotomy: Defi Compliance underneath Zero-Information – Enterprise Ethereum Alliance

Opinion from Dr. Andreas Freund. 21 August 2024

TL/DR

There are platform options for DeFi protocols to combine regulatory compliance with out compromising decentralization. Utilizing blockchain expertise and cryptographic protocols, DeFi protocols can guarantee safe and clear transactions that meet regulatory requirements whereas sustaining consumer privateness. Such protocols implement compliance guidelines on digital property and their holders. Subsequently, they will present a strong and versatile system to assist DeFi protocols navigate the advanced regulatory panorama, contributing to a safer and extra dependable decentralized monetary ecosystem.

Introduction

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has taken the monetary world by storm (at the very least within the OpEd pages of Bloomberg and Fortune), providing a permissionless and clear different to conventional monetary establishments with a complete locked worth (TVL), as of this writing, of practically $100Bn. Nonetheless, this very decentralization creates a serious hurdle: compliance. Not like standard establishments with central management, DeFi protocols are sometimes ruled by self-executing code and lack a single entity chargeable for imposing rules. This raises a important query: how can these modern protocols combine compliance guidelines into their DNA with out compromising their core ideas of decentralization and autonomy? This problem lies on the coronary heart of DeFi’s future, as regulators grapple with discovering the fitting steadiness between fostering innovation and defending shoppers since practically all of the ~ $100Bn in TVL and billions of {dollars} each day trades on Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) in keeping with DeFi Lama haven’t undergone any correct compliance checks. Sadly, and really not too long ago, regulators have resorted to authorized motion towards the likes of Uniswap, Tornado Cash, and different DeFi protocols.

After thumbing their noses at regulators for a few years, the organizations constructing DeFi protocols at the moment are realizing two issues:

1. The phrases decentralization and No-Management don’t shield towards costly authorized actions.
2. DeFi mass adoption requires higher UX and compliance enforcement — each monetary and information privateness, and on the identical time.

Even when DeFi protocols needed to implement compliance checks instantly, it will not solely upset their greatest shopper’s apple carts however would require protocol rewrites. In different phrases, fully new variations of the protocol with older variations nonetheless working with none compliance checks. That isn’t a tenable state of affairs, since, very seemingly, the foundations or DAOs governing DeFi protocols would nonetheless be held to account for non-compliant variations of their protocol since “good contracts are without end” — sure, Marilyn Monroe pun quote supposed.

Fortunately there’s a approach ahead for these protocols. Leveraging blockchain-native compliance mechanisms – a mix of good contracts, and blockchain-verifiable zero-knowledge proofs, representing assertions {that a} consumer and submitted asset transaction are compliant with the relevant regulation in a jurisdiction, yields a complete framework to make sure regulatory compliance, danger administration, and transaction reporting for any digital asset. The urged framework extends the work initially achieved by Azgad-Tromer et. al (2023) that mixes sturdy regulatory compliance actions with privateness safety, enabling, for instance, the creation of compliant variations of digital property that implement jurisdictional insurance policies whereas being privacy-preserving. The unique framework by Azgad-Tromer et al. preserves digital property’ financial worth and technological capabilities whereas guaranteeing that delicate data is selectively seen solely to licensed regulation enforcement authorities – Fincen, SEC, OFAC, and so on. This enhances the safety and integrity of digital asset transactions whereas sustaining privateness for official customers. Furthermore, the framework’s compatibility with several types of digital property comparable to fungible and non-fungible digital property makes it a flexible answer.

Briefly, the framework augments blockchains with extra details about actors’ identities and asset provenance in a privacy-preserving method and was first carried out by Sealance. This modern strategy permits the framework to deal with the challenges posed by the decentralized nature of digital property. Attaching Compliance-Related Auxiliary Info (CRAI) to transactions involving digital property in encrypted type ensures that important compliance information, comparable to consumer identities, credentials, transaction historical past, and fund provenance, stays safe and tamper-proof – see FinCen guidance on Anit-Money-Laundering for example. The framework incorporates cryptographic protocols that may robotically implement compliance insurance policies assigned to digital property — what holders can and can’t do with such a digital asset — and digital asset holders — what property people can and can’t maintain and/or commerce. It could additionally replace CRAI in the course of the recording of transactions on the blockchain. This integration permits real-time compliance monitoring and reporting, enhancing transparency and accountability within the digital asset ecosystem.

Notice, that earlier work on this space was carried out by Kaira et al. in 2021 for the case of a centrally managed Hedge Fund. Whereas complementary to this dialogue, it doesn’t contact on KYC/AML compliance, which is the central query we’re discussing on this paper.

The best way to make DeFi Protocols Regulatory Compliant

So how does such a framework function within the context of DeFi protocols, given that the majority property on these platforms usually are not natively regulatory compliant?

Fig. 1: Excessive-Degree DeFi (ZKP) Compliance Structure as an extension of Azgad-Tromer et al.

The important thing perception within the extension of the Azgad-Tromer et al. framework is {that a} good contract pockets used, for instance, in Account Abstraction (see EIP-4337) as a consultant of a number of Entity Owned Accounts (EOA) has considerably extra flexibility on account of its programmability than an EOA. If a wise contract pockets is mixed with different good contracts that implement compliance guidelines and work together with a DeFi protocol we now have all of the substances we’d like. Consider a wise contract pockets as functionally equal to a standard Dealer-Seller, a regulated and registered entity, that locations trades for his or her shoppers, and a DeFi protocol with a number of compliance imposing good contracts as a registered inventory or commodity alternate with its buying and selling and compliance capabilities. Notice {that a} Dealer-Seller is a *registered entity* that may be a *authorized delegate* of an everyday investor to put trades on the investor’s behalf and implement commerce compliance guidelines. The inventory alternate is one other *registered entity* – registered with regulatory authorities such because the SEC or Fincen – and its compliance and buying and selling capabilities are separate by design — separation of issues is a big compliance rule.   

With this analogy in thoughts, we are able to now assemble a regulatory-compliant DeFi protocol stack built-in with a compliance framework such because the one pioneered by Sealance by means of coverage supervisor contracts with related compliance insurance policies, and a compliance coverage and compliant account registry. Probably the most easy implementation is thru “good contract hooks” in DeFi protocols as they permit customized compliance enforcement extensions to the protocol, for instance, Uniswap V4 or Seaport. Nonetheless, this doesn’t remedy the problem for DeFi protocols that wouldn’t have such capabilities; presently nonetheless the bulk.

There’s a basic secure sample to work together with DeFi protocols that wouldn’t have contract hooks for compliance checks when a consumer receives a yield-bearing instrument such because the Compound yield token (YT) e.g. cDai. In our description beneath, we implicitly assume that DeFi protocol contracts such because the Uniswap Router or Place Supervisor are registered contracts such that the compliance coverage enforcement mechanism embedded in “compliant” property can determine them as compliant and never require a further zkp compliance assertion to be embedded with, for instance, a switch perform. 

Fig. 2: Instance zkp-Compliance Stack software with Unsiwap and compliant good contract pockets

A compliance-safe DeFi interplay sample is described beneath utilizing the instance of including liquidity to a Uniswap Liquidity Pool for specificity:

1. A consumer (EOA) calls a DeFi Protocol compliance (wrapper, also called a logical abstraction) contract straight or by means of the consumer’s Sensible Contract Pockets in an account abstraction state of affairs.
   Notice: the good contract pockets has already been given a Energy-Of-Legal professional certificates by means of an accepted KYC/AML supplier, comparable to a financial institution or an alternate. This certificates is utilized in the identical method as a real-world Energy-Of-Legal professional works; it marks the good contract pockets as in a position to make use of the zero-knowledge proof (zkp) assertions of compliance that the zk-based compliance platform creates for a consumer’s asset transactions.
2. The DeFi (wrapper) contract verifies the submitted zkp compliance assertions utilizing the zk-based compliance stack – a wise contract system see Fig 1 – routing compliance assertions within the type of zk-proofs to (compliance) coverage enforcement factors (PEP) – good contracts as a part of the zk compliance stack) the place proofs are verified and actions aka transactions are both allowed or denied. If the compliance checks are profitable, liquidity is added to a pool — both a pool of compliant or uncompliant property — on behalf of the consumer by the DeFi (wrapper) contract. Let’s assume for the next a compliant asset pool

1. The DeFi compliance (wrapper) contract receives the YT and creates a compliant YT asset using one of many zkp assertions supplied by the consumer.
2. The DeFi compliance (wrapper) contract then transfers the now compliant YT to the EOA or the good contract pockets — this additionally requires a zkp compliance assertion. 

This prevents customers from buying and selling non-compliant YTs until the consumer manually unwraps the asset. Notice that every one the yield now accumulates to the compliant YT. A variant of this strategy is utilizing DeFi compliance library contracts with the identical performance as a compliance wrapper contract whereas not requiring belief within the preliminary wrapper contract deployment.

For DeFi protocol transactions of compliant property (e.g. lending, swaps) or compliant property with non–compliant property (e.g. swaps), there may be a further sample:

1. A Person (EOA) can make the most of an authority delegation coverage expressed as a PEP for its good contract pockets such that the good contract pockets can work together with a compliant asset with out being required to supply a zkp compliance assertion. This may be achieved by the consumer making a delegating zkp compliance assertion (delegation to good contract pockets) and submitting it to the zk-based compliance stack to be validated after which registered with a selected Energy-Of-Legal professional coverage inside a PEP. Energy-of-attorney-type insurance policies can exist at a jurisdictional stage, by asset class, and even on the stage of particular person property.
   Key Level: An authority delegation coverage to be utilized in a transaction is on the asset stage, not the extent of a payee, a payer, or an authorizer stage. This permits an asset to determine if a payer or payee is permitted to work together with it, with out being required to supply a zkp compliance assertion.
2. Recognized DeFi protocol good contracts e.g. Uniswap Router, or an Aave Lending Pool supervisor can, due to this fact, additionally make the most of a Proof Delegation coverage as described above. The first distinction is that on this context the entity creating the delegation zkp compliance assertion (regulatory whitelisting of a Defi protocol good contract), and the registration is finished by a certified coverage creator or registrar comparable to a KYC supplier throughout the zk-based compliance ecosystem.
   Key Level: As within the case of an EOA, this registrar-proof-delegation coverage is on the stage of the asset, and might differentiate jurisdiction, asset class, and even particular person asset. Nonetheless, it’s of a distinct authority delegation coverage kind as a result of the requester has one other ecosystem function. Subsequently, the compliant asset should have each varieties of authorization delegation insurance policies hooked up to it as a result of each a wise contract pockets, a Defi protocol compliance wrapper, and a Defi Protocol good contract will work together with the compliant asset.

Conclusion

In abstract, to make sure the longevity and acceptance of DeFi protocols by mainstream customers, these protocols should transfer in the direction of regulatory compliance. The described compliance platform, an extension of the framework proposed by Azgad-Tromer et al. and carried out by Sealance, presents a sensible answer permitting DeFi protocols to include compliance measures whereas sustaining decentralization. It makes use of blockchain expertise and superior cryptographic protocols for clear, safe transactions that meet regulatory necessities, all whereas preserving consumer privateness. It enforces compliance guidelines on digital property and their house owners, offering a stable and versatile system. The important thing advantages of the described compliance framework for DeFi protocols are:

• Regulatory Compliance: The framework permits DeFi protocols to stick to regulatory requirements with out compromising their decentralized nature (although KYC is essentially nonetheless achieved by centralized entities).
• Danger Administration: The framework permits mechanisms for efficient danger administration and transaction reporting for varied digital property.
• Privateness Safety: The framework incorporates cryptographic privacy-preserving options comparable to zkps guaranteeing that delicate consumer data utilized in compliance credentials and in creating zkp compliance coverage assertions stays confidential, with private data saved and accessible solely by KYC/AML or different compliance credential suppliers comparable to banks or exchanges
• Safety: Leveraging secure cryptographic protocols, the framework can improve the safety and integrity of digital asset transactions by imposing advanced enterprise guidelines.
• Versatility: It’s appropriate with several types of digital property, together with fungible and non-fungible tokens, making it a flexible answer for the DeFi ecosystem.
• Transparency and Accountability: The framework promotes transparency and accountability within the DeFi house by means of real-time compliance monitoring and reporting (by means of onchain submitted, totally encrypted reviews).

Such a framework can help DeFi protocols in navigating the intricate regulatory atmosphere, contributing to a safer and extra reliable decentralized monetary ecosystem.

Dr Freund will be contacted through electronic mail at [email protected]