Infrastructure for institutions and regulators entering digital assets.
We work with banks, stablecoin issuers, treasuries and the regulators that supervise them. Our focus is the layer where identity, privacy and risk meet public infrastructure, and where the answers have to be defensible.
Why this work exists
Public ledgers offer settlement finality, programmability and continuous markets, but their default posture is incompatible with how regulated institutions operate. Pseudonymous wallets are not identities. Classical cryptography is on a finite clock. On-chain transparency does not, by itself, produce evidence a supervisor or auditor can act on.
Our work is to close that gap deliberately, on terms a risk function, a counterparty and a regulator can each accept. We do so through three products, each shaped by a question institutions consistently ask before they commit capital or grant authorisation. Who is transacting? What is disclosed, to whom, and under what authority? And how do we know the position is sound?
Three products, used together or independently
Each is in production and can be adopted on its own. They share one assumption: that institutional adoption rests on cryptography that will still be sound a decade from now, disclosure that is selective rather than absolute, and evidence an outside reviewer can read without translation.
Musnad
Cryptographic identity that institutions, individuals and autonomous agents control, backed by NIST-standardised post-quantum signatures and selective disclosure. Issuer keys are held inside a FIPS 140-3 boundary; holders present only the attributes a counterparty is entitled to see.
The practical effect is reusable KYC across jurisdictions, tokenised instruments gated to eligible holders at the protocol layer, and identity proofs that remain valid in a post-quantum world.
Read the Musnad overview →Maknoon
Permissioned settlement privacy with auditable oversight. Institutional privacy is not anonymity; it is selective disclosure under authority. Participants prove the regulatory facts that matter, such as sanctions status, jurisdiction and accreditation, in zero knowledge, while amounts and counterparties remain confidential to the network at large.
Lawful access is part of the design. Decryption requires a quorum of independent notaries, every access request is recorded on an immutable log, and the framework is aligned with MiCA, GDPR and the FATF travel rule.
Read the Maknoon overview →Mizan
Risk governance for digital assets. Mizan adapts the methodology a credit-rating analyst would apply to a structured product and applies it to on-chain protocols, producing a defensible view of capital safety, strategy integrity, counterparty and operational risk, and liquidity. Every assessment is reproducible and every position is tracked live.
The output is the artefact a risk committee expects: a composite score, a verdict, a red-flag register and a board-ready evidence pack. Institutions run Mizan themselves, or engage us to run the framework on their behalf.
Read the Mizan overview →How we engage
Most engagements begin with a conversation. An issuer is preparing a stablecoin programme. A supervisor is drafting guidance and wants accurate technical detail. A treasury has been asked by its board to demonstrate, in writing, why an on-chain position is acceptable.
We work as advisor, as implementation partner, and as the team that runs the framework on a continuing basis. Each product is available hosted by us or deployed on your own infrastructure.
Continuing the conversation
If your institution is shaping a digital-asset programme, or if you supervise one and would like a technical counterpart to think alongside, we would be glad to talk. A first conversation carries no obligation.